Slashdot Mirror
Alleged British Hacker Fears Guantanamo
Magnifico writes "The BBC is reporting that Gary McKinnon, a British man accused of breaking into the U.S. government computer networks, could end up at Guantanamo Bay. His lawyer is fighting his extradition to the United States arguing, 'The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were.'"
And am not exactly a fan of the Us Government, but you've got to be a bit of an idiot to 'test weaknesses'/hack the Us government's property. they're not gonna take it lying down are they?
Seems like if you're shipped there, you're automatically guilty, and if you're automatically guilty, you have to stay there until you stop being guilty. Is this one of those cases using the new extradition system, whereby the US doesn't have to show any evidence to the UK - it just has to say "Hand him over", and he gets sent?
Still, just label him a terrorist, even though he claims he's nothing more than a script kiddie, and then people aren't allowed to say no.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I'm excited for this well balanced and thought out discussion that is sure to follow!
That's more than most of the prisoners at Guantanamo get.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
After reading the article, I think he's more likely to end up at Area 51.
I don't think he's moaning about "doing the time" he's just complaining about being treated as a "terrorist" and all the fun that involves.
Jail time - fair enough. Guantanamo Bay, perhaps not...
Acid House saves Souls
Uh... OK. He should plead insanity.
The owls are not what they seem
Having a trial by jury, then being convicted by them, then going through sentencing, and then having the option of appeal..... that's one thing.
Getting shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp for an indeterminate sentence for something you weren't convicted of... that's something else entirely.
He's not whining about the time he would have to serve if found guilty in a federal court which followed due process. What he's complaining about is that current US anti-terror laws make it possible for him to be held indefinitely without trial.
The US has claimed he will be tried in federal court just like any other criminal, but the very idea that he COULD be held indefinitely without any sort of due process under the current law is troubling.
If other countries believe the US will refuse to allow due process in any case it can label "terrorism," they will be unwilling to extradite criminals to us, which is a net loss for the cause of criminal justice.
Guantanamo is famous for tortures towards the prisoners. One thing is losing your freedom because you committed a crime. But towards an administrative crime (hacking), is it even logical that you get sent to one of the worst prisons in the world?
Let's not forget about the Iraqi soldiers tortured and humilliated.
This guy was a hacker, not some Jihadist killing people or flying planes into buildings. Throw him in a regular prison and move on.
http://religiousfreaks.com/is that his actions are said to have caused $5000 of damage to each PC he connected to, which, coincidentally, is the threshold at which he can be sentenced to a year in prison, which, coincidentally, is the threshold at which he can be extradited.
The US government is gaming the system to get its hands on this guy. That's why it's news.
Funny thing is, I live a half mile from the base he is said to have "disabled" and this is the first I've heard of this story.
I seriously hope you arn't suggesting that you think it would be ok to indefinitly hold the burglar in your basement, exacting various forms of torture? If not, your analogy fails to be analogous. If you do, well...
Not liking the actions of others does not give you a carte blanche to exact punishment of your choice.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Us Brits consider the idea of being extradited to the USA's rape prisons, Gitmo or no Gitmo, to be about on a level as you Yanks regard being extradited to an Iranian prison.
Isn't there something about "cruel and unusual punishment" in your constitution? And the sad thing is that this story is likely to get you guys making rape jokes instead of realising how shitty your country has become. You were once a great nation and you are throwing it all away.
And no, I have no sympathy for this stupid script kiddy kook. But, as Dostoyevsky once wrote, "the degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons".
That this is he lawyer talking. His lawyer is going to say whatever it takes to keep him there.
Trust me, Guantanimo is not where they send Brittish computer hackers.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You commit a crime, you get punished. He may end up in a US prison (which seems common-sense, since f I commited a fairly major crime in the UK, I'd expect to be in prison there, not here) , but I have my doubts they would send him to Guantanamo, especially since the US did not hint at it.... This revenge stuff is bs. True, he exposed a lot of vunlerability, but if they don't punish him hard, many more will try thinking they can get away with a slap on the wrist. This is just politics warped in the opposite direction. There have been times when people against the Patriot act and other Bush decisions have seemed as bad if not more obnoxious and ignorant then some of the hard-core Bush followers. I don't mean to troll, but it sounds like this article is written by someone wrapped up in the anti-Bush attitude. Balance is hard to find. It's much easier to just choose a side and let them give you a bias then to continue to think on your own, joining a side momentarily when you agree.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
How do you cause five thousand dollars in damages without taking a chainsaw to the boxxen? Is the DoD buying from Alienware now?
I guess he should have thought about where he would end up before he decided to hack into these systems.
This seems like a straightforward extradition. He is not an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield. As such, there is next to no reason to think you'll see him in Cuba.
If they wanted him down in Gitmo they would grab him in the middle of the night and fly him there. They would not go through the normal legal system for civilians.
His lawyer should know this. He is only trying to get people who dislike holding enemy combatants in Gitmo on his side for something completely unrelated. Well played, but no one should buy the schtick.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Gary, to use an old, American saying I'd recommend "getting the fuck out of Dodge" before it's too late. You'd probably be safe in France.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
...And according to Gonzalez, Rush, and the folks at Fox News, Gitmo is Club Med with anchor fence.
I have been to London, where I enjoyed the five or six minutes of sunshine each morning before rolling right into the remaining daylight hours of grey skies, grey ground, and grey air, begging and hoping for merciful sunset so you could see some color from the electric lights.
Shouldn't he be grateful?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
U.S Gov: "We want to extradite this guy and try him for hacking our computers."
Sleazy Lawyer: "They have a grudge against my client and want to hold him indefinately."
USG: "We want to try him for the crimes he committed."
SL: "They want to put him Gitmo forever without a trail!"
USG: "Johnnie Cochran called. He wants his defense stragety back."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No one believes that, not even his lawyers who are just trying to play this up to keep his client from facing the music
That's not the issue, and I'm sorry I ran out of mod points... It's fairly clear at this point that he did commit the crime, but no criminal of any caliber deserves to be held or imprisoned without trial. Guantanamo is one of the world's breeding grounds of civil rights violations. The US wants to toss him in a cell and forget about him. If I were him, I would run far, far away.
Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that one.
Unless you call three squares a day and 5 prayer breaks torture.
Sorry, but Amnesty International disagrees with you. OK, maybe I exaggerated, Guantanamo isn't one of the worst prisons in the world. It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down".
There, happy now?
Guantanamo Bay was called into being to exploit a juridical loophole in order to hold people without accusation, without legal representation, and without trial for as long as the authorities need to either build a case against them or to clear them. The reason this was done was to get at people considered to be the equivalent of enemy combatants but without a state that you could hold responsible, without a "home front" which would moderate their actions, and which on balance were considered potentially far too dangerous to let walk around free. In other words: for real terrorists who threaten real lives. Not for teens who make a hobby of breaking into poorly protected computers.
What we see now is that laws are stretched a bit to mark anyone from overseas who breaks into a defense computer as a "terrorist" and hence eligible for "terrorist" treatment. Which includes e.g. a lack of legal representation and a 20 year prison sentence (if he's lucky) or a 60 year one if he's unlucky. Which in this case is of course totally out of proportion.
What worries me most is the cries of "he commited a crime and thence should not whine about the time". Nice copy, but more than a bit barbaric when you come to think of it. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense, and people's rights (e.g. to legal counsel and reasonable sentences) should not be set aside simply because the administration currently in power happens to feel like it.
If we seriously consider 20 years of prison as just punishment for the electronic equivalent of breaking and entering on federal property, then why not adopt "Islamic" laws such as cutting of hands for petty theft and stoning for adultery? Those laws were made in and for a medieval society. Don't tell me that the US of A is becoming the appropriate setting for that kind of law.
The fact is that it is possible, and the current US laws violate fundamental principles of human rights and justice. Nobody should be extradited to the US while they have the ability to deny a fair and open trial, just like nobody should be extradited to China or North Korea.
I believe it could happen to him. They would just have to label him a terrorist. I don't see anything far fetched about him going to Guantanamo and being held without trial.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Keep drinking that punch man... keep drinking it.
I'm sure it will just end up being dealt with the way murder suspects are handled: the US will issue guarantees that he won't go to Gitmo. (With murder suspects, most civilised countries extradite to the US only on condition that if convicted, the suspect won't face the death penalty.)
Amnesty International has an anti-US slant in many cases:
"The unlawful detention of "enemy combatants" ": We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection. Even the UN isn't complaining!
"Many of these detainees allege they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In desperation, some detainees have attempted suicide. Others have gone on prolonged hunger strikes, being kept alive only through painful force feeding measures."
People can allege anything. I can allege North Korea is using microwaves beamed from a satellite to control my thoughts - that doesn't make it true. People attempt suicide for many reasons, including guilt. And if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
Anything we do, or don't do, will get criticized, unless we let them all go and wait for another terrorist attack.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Does it bother anyone else that the US said:
Mark Summers, representing the US government, said there was no precedent to suggest the US would breach its promises, and the court should take on "faith" the undertaking.
but I don't see anywhere where they 'promise' to try him in federal court - they have given him 'assurances' but no 'guarantee'. Sorry, as soon as somebody says "take my word for it but I won't write it down", you know damb well they have no intention of keeping their precious word.
Agreed, it is troubling. That said, what is the chance that the administration would actually do this to a Briton caught in Britain? Something approaching zero, I'd say. There's little doubt to me that the law should be changed; this particular defendant, however, doesn't really have much to worry about.
I think they aren't reporting that he could end up there, just that his lawyer says he could end up there - a small but important difference.
The lawyer is trying legal wrangling to help his client avoid extradition, and it may be something that could never happen but if there is no law preventing it (or more likely a giant fuzzy grey area) the it's probably just a tactic to stall / avoid the extradition.
Not true. BBC has a few good podcasts that I subscribe to, and if what they're reporting on is any indication of British public sentiment, they most definitely do believe it. There have been several stories in the last few weeks that seem to have been tipped off by a BBC reporter posing as a lawyer to get into Gitmo to interview one of these "detainees", who told stories about conditions there and forced feeding tantamount to torture. The Brits seem very concerned about it, to the point of getting Condi and ... some State Dept official whose name I forget on the BBC Today interview program and grilling them on it. (Not American media softball throwing, either. Real calling bullshit and holding feet to fire.) It represents an end-around bypassing due process, speedy and public trial, and probably a couple other Amendments. Frankly, they can't understand why Americans aren't as concerned as they are.
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
Huh? Are you nuts? It might be just me, but there's this bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" in that old document... it's called the "Bill of Rights". Ever heard of it?
For morons like you who don't understand what this means, it essentially boils down to the requirement that the punishment for a crime has to fit the seriousness of the crime. You can't get a death sentence for stealing a pack of bubble gum, for example; and that's not just because the law doesn't allow for it. It's because such a law would be unconstitutional.
That being said, there's another issue here that so far, everyone seems to be glossing over: the fact that he's facing extradition to begin with. Doesn't the UK have laws against computer crime, too? If so, why does he have to be extradited, much less to a country that does not extradite its own citizens to the UK? (Yes, the extradition agreement between the UK and the US is one-way - does anyone still want to tell me that Blair isn't Shrub's lap dog?) And if the UK does NOT have laws against this... well, then he didn't do anything illegal, and cannot and should not be extradited. (Otherwise, using the same reasoning, China could ask for the extradition of people speaking out against its government in other countries, too, for example, and I think that most people would agree that that's not something that should happen.)
And finally, you can't blame him for being anxious. Bush has shown time and again that he doesn't care about whether what he does is legal or not (in fact, he has openly SAID that he considers himself to be above the law); given that, I'm not surprised that the guy is worried.
Sure, he did something wrong, and most likely, he committed a crime under UK laws. But that doesn't mean that his human rights and the constitutional rights he enjoys in the USA and all that simply vanish; and most importantly, it does mean that his dignity simply vanishes.
The Germans have a clause like that in their constitution: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar" ("human dignity is inviolable") - it's the first clause in their constitution. Maybe it's time we get an amendment like that, too, so that concentration camps like the one on Cuba will be illegal. Well, not that the criminals running the country now would really care, of course...
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Isn't there also a prohibition against extradicting people to countries that practice torture?
Regardless of how you believe the system does work, its how it could work that should be feared. Although, I agree, he won't end up there mostly because it is a bit too high of a profile case now, but he could, and that should never be a possibility. I hope he does get sent back here eventually for criminal proceedings but I do hope we can REALLY restrict this Guantanamo Bay crap, or remove it entirely. It has NO place in a fair and legal justice system and it is apparent it can easily be abused for purposes other than "terrorism" in the future.
Just like the people in Guantanamo, more than 80% of whom were, according to the State Department, handed over by bounty hunters with no US-confirmed intelligence of what they were doing or where they were doing it. Of the other 15%, only one, the American, has been found to be "an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield". Some were teenagers who were released after a mere two and a half years of illegal imprisonment - which I'm SURE you would have fully supported if it had been you - and some of the others have turned out to have been rounded up because they happened to be standing near someone else who was being arrested. At least one prisoner was "captured" because the person who arrested him thought he had suspicious trousers.
They would not go through the normal legal system for civilians.
They probably would for someone living in the UK. To do otherwise would be to lose UK troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as causing the fall of the only European government which is stil prepared to ignore the will of its own people to support the US's oil-grab.
He is only trying to get people who dislike holding enemy combatants in Gitmo on his side for something completely unrelated.
Well, it's a simple fact that the US has thrown hundreds of people into jail in Guantanamo for no reason at all, so why exactly would we believe that they won't throw this guy in there too? The rule of law has been suspended in the US, the self-appointed military nut-cases and oil-barons that are running the country can basically do anything they like and are happily killing hundreds of people every week simply in order to support their share-prices. Do you really think they'd not lock this guy up for revealing that they're not even good at the job they're pretending to do?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The US could easily just sign a guarentee that he would get a trial - so far they have refused. They have called the guy a terrorist. I can add one and one and I think he has a perfectly valid reason to think he would be on the one way trip to Cuba. If I were the british judge, I wouldn't hand him over unless the US agreed to give him a trial.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I highly doubt that they will extradite him directly to Guantanamo.
- Andrew
I meta-moderate because I care.
1) The US can request extradition, but US residents are protected by the constitution
I wonder exactly which events of the past years allow one to think this means anything, anymore. The Constitution is not what it used to be. hmmm... rephrase... is not respected, not anymore.
----
born stupid? try again
At Guantanamo, the prisoners don't have any rights to a trial or access to the American Justice system -- until the US Supreme Court decides that it is not Constitutional for the Executive branch to accuse, convict and execute the sentence on a person with no trial. I figure he'd be there for about 20 years with no trial until this Supreme Court wakes up.
What he ought to fear is an overseas detention compound as this is where one British releasee suffered torture, not at Gitmo.
While I agree this is a ploy by his lawyer to try this case in the Court of Public Opinion (at least in England where Guantanamo is not very popular), the US apparently doesn't torture prisoners there. They torture them elsewhere because Guantanamo is under too much public scrutiny
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
And if you think this is anything but a lawyer trick designed to prevent him from being extradited, I've got a fortune amassed by an ex-general in Nigeria that I could use some help getting out of the country...
FTA:
"The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court."
"But defence lawyers said his human rights could be breached if he was sent to the US."
And the reason for their thinking: "Defence lawyer Edmund Lawson said the US Embassy in London had provided an 'unsigned and anonymous' diplomatic note and said Mr McKinnon was still 'vulnerable' to such an order."
Given the fact that this guy is a national security threat, he should be lucky to get tried in court and NOT be going straight to Guantanamo. What he thinks he did is irrelevant. How does he know someone wasn't piggybacking on him? How do we know that he didn't give information to anyone else? I agree that Guantanamo might be a bit extreme if the guy had hacked in and defaced the IRS site or a state information portal. But the second you get into military (TFA says he hacked into Naval weapon station Earle) all bets are off. If he were to get off easy the message will be sent to our enemy: "Hack all you want and if you're caught just claim you were showing vulnerabilities and looking for UFO information".
His lawyers would do well to just try to get in writing that he'll get a court trial - they're not going to stop him from being sent to the US.
If Gary's name was Muhammad, I wonder how that would change things. Even if he was just a nice suburban kid with no connections and no intentions to do anyone any real harm, a couple of good media pieces and you'd have instant enemy of the state. There is no responsible way to handle the power to convict without trial.
Sometimes its good to be a Mc.
Absolute and total agreement...
Also, this nonsense that he MIGHT be sent of to Guantanamo is just that, nonsense. He's going to go to some club fed for nonviolent low escape risk dipsticks who can't understand the difference between right and wrong. He should go to a British prison for common street thugs which isn't nearly so nice. The US would be doing a favor in fighting to get him here.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
"If they wanted him down in Gitmo they would grab him in the middle of the night and fly him there"
Uh-huh. He lives in Wood Green. I wouldn't recommend letting anyone who isn't from there actually go into Wood Green in the middle of the night. They'd all die before they got to his front door.
Horrible place.
Sadly, going to Gitmo would probably be an improvement, but I can't support this extradition until he's guaranteed a fair trial in the US - which at the present time he hasn't.
Why doesn't he just fly to New York and turn himself in?
The purpose of Gitmo is to keep those prisoners in a place where they are not actually in the US and thus they can be deprived of many of their Constitutional rights (an argument I don't agree with, by the way, your rights to be protected from our government do not diminish at our borders).
So, if he were just to fly into the US, he would be on US soil, and none of these shenanigans apply. And there's no legal method for extraditing him off of US soil.
The most he would have to fear is federal (pound-me-in-the-ass) prison. And from the article, i sounds like he deserves it.
It also sounds like he has a very high opinion of himself, making himself out to be some kind of nemesis to the US government. This guy appears to have huge delusions of grandeur.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
"species of administrative revenge"
At long last, Donald Rumsfeld's existence is finally and adequately explained.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
What I always think about when discussing these cases, and you probably should too, is that "there are no guilty men in prison". In other words, prisoners say shit that isn't true.
Now, I understand there is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the world, some of well deserved, but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel.
Prisoners lie, we know that. How are they suddenly credible?
And please don't take this as defense of Bush, etc. That wasn't the point, please don't respond to that.
I just want to understand why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications.
The answer, of course, is more transparency. I think until we have that, the "truth" about what is happening at Guantanamo is impossible to know.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
The fact that the U.S. of A. even has to make such a promise, puts them out of step with regards to the human rights most other 1st world countries take for granted. I'm not saying that people don't get dissappeared in other countries, just that the option isn't official public policy.
I read another article about the guy off that site, and found this bit of information very interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4721183.stm
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Uh... the definition of a secret court is one that no one knows about, so it's safe to say that no, no one does. That's the point.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection. Even the UN isn't complaining!
How about not having a tactical military force able to engage following the rules of war? How about the fact that people imprisoned, were so, before a formal war was declared? Unless you count 9/11 an act of war against 'anyone not on our side'. How did prisoners in Iraq not follow the rules of war? Stooping down to a brutal level is not a good thing for a civilized nation to do. If anything, the US should, by their actions, show the world how a prisoner should be treated.
People can allege anything. I can allege North Korea is using microwaves beamed from a satellite to control my thoughts - that doesn't make it true. People attempt suicide for many reasons, including guilt. And if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
That's what court of laws are for. To determine if any allegations are true and to punish accordingly. If the allegations are baseless, it will be thrown out of the court. How many prisonors in guantanamo have been through a proper trial before sentenced there? But dismissing this right because "People can allege anything" is downright scary...
Oh and about terrorist acts: Every one in the world condemns them, even the trolls you'll see posting anti-US bullshit. But, when engaging in a war, it's funny that you believe you'll have no victims. I propose you rethink why you are at war in the first place.
- Many of the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo were picked up in the bounty program in Pakistan
- One satirist from Pakistan was recently released and has interviewed repeatedly on conditions that are, without a doubt, torture
- The "tribulnals" to determine whether or not someone belonged there were farcical kangaroo courts, with defendants unable to view evidence against them or cross examine alleged eye witnesses because those documents were "classified"
Make no mistake, Guantanamo is another stain on America's conscience, and makes the phrase "Land of the Free" ironic at best.You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I have a great deal for you, slashdot editors : if you send me money, you could end up owning a very large and important bridge.
Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?
c le/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html
m l
Well, there were the 38 detainess who were released in March 2005 because the US government decided that they were not enemy combatants. None of these people received compensation for unjust imprisonment, and none of them have ever been told why they were arrested.
Or how about "Adel" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Or how about the five Chinese detainees who have been found not to be enemy combatants, but are still sitting in Guantanamo? http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.ht
The United States has chosen to put those people into jail rather than execute them. That is a favor that the US is doing out of the kindness of its heart. Your welcome.
"Kindness of its heart"? Fuck off. Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.
ASPARAGUS!!" Gross. They are being tortured there.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
...to close him in a room with a PC and an assembler and force him to write a Windows-compatible operating system from scratch. Thus society will get a free open source alternative to Windows, and he is going to be happy for the rest of his life.
In Texas you can just shoot them. Fair enough?
The UN has been complaining from Day 1 & is still calling for the shutdown of the Guantanamo prison camp.
http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+bush+guantanamo
To top it off, your logic is somewhat circular: enemy combatants have no rights to due process, they allege horrible treatement, but since they're enemy combatants we expect them to make such allegations.
You notice how your logic all hinges on the assumption that these guys are are 'enemy combatants' aka terrorists? A title, which by definition, prevents that accusation from being examined.
Did you know that Amnesty International also has an anti-N. Korea slant and an anti-China slant and an anti-Iran slant? Actually, they're slanted against anyone they criticize.My dad always said there's three ways to do things: The right way, the wrong way and the Army way. Now when you say that, you have to count down from three fingers to 1. I'll let you guess which finger is still standing by the time you get to the "Army way".
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
a civilian is someone who wasn't part of armed combat. a "combatant" is someone in uniform who was. care to try again?
You've made your bigotry quite clear with your unapologetic ignorance and your IMO's, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your post somewhat seriously for comment.
They waged war against our country and are being kept alive only out of the restraint of the American government. [...] These aren't innocent bystanders. They're warriors commited to killing Americans.
Because someone told you they did? Do you realize that the vast majority of the detainees there weren't even captured by U.S. forces, but rather by bounty hunters? The America you seem so intent on defending was founded upon, among other things, the ideas that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that all people are created equal. Many prisoners held at Guantanamo are detained indefinitely without charge or conviction. By conveniently choosing to afford rights only to your own citizens, you are nullifying the validity of your own ideology.
These are non-uniformed combatants (to whom the Genevea convention most certainly does NOT apply). They could (and should IMO) be drug out and shot at a moment's notice, quite legally.
While the Bush administration has sneakily avoided classifying the prisoners as POW to get around the Geneva convention (which no other government in the world has supported, mind you), the U.S. has in the past signed other international treaties that clearly ban what they are doing with Guantanamo. So no, it wouldn't be legal, not by a longshot.
If you want to know torture, examine a Muslim prison where fingers, hands, eyes, tongues are removed. Feeding is optional. Ever seen a "stoning" (and no, I don't mean you and and your friends with a bong)? A beheading?
Where are these Muslim prisons? Are you just making this up? Provide some facts, we don't want to hear your sensationalist bullshit.
Amnesty International called the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp the "gulag of our times", and the U.N. has called it a "human rights scandal". I won't comment on how bad it is relative to other prisons worldwide, but the existence of 'worse' prisons doesn't somehow justify the existence of Guantanamo Bay's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I think it's more the case that we aren't given chance to find out if these people are guilty or anything first. Most people who deny their guilt in prison HAVE had the chance to convince people, and they failed to, usually (one would hope) for good reason. That's the bit that Guantanamo Bay lacks, and that's what sparks people being so pissed off with America about; not that they're holding people who say they're innocent, that they're holding people who haven't even been given chance to say they're innocent.
America's an absolute discrace, I find myself thinking more and more they deserve everything they get (I'll say hi to him in Guantanamo!)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
I am quite familiar with the conventions, but thank you.
and shut your idiot mouth.
After a careful consideration, I must regretfully deny your request. Anything else?
I hate how morons like you can ruin these discussions.
Quite true, to someone like you anything involving reason must indeed appear "ruined". May I suggest visiting some supremacist hate site instead of Slashdot? You would feel much better there and there would be noone around to "ruin" your discussions.
I really gotta stop responding to these despicable cowards.
Interesting. This article suggests that the US has signed an amended extradition treaty recently. Bit disturbing too.
(1) He is not a member of Al Qaeda.
(2) He has never been a member of Al Qaeda.
(3) He has not provided material support to Al Qaeda.
(4) He was not captured on a battlefield.
(5) He has not committed an act of war against the United States.
(**6**) HE IS NOT AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT (an individual who has engaged in acts of war against the United States and violated the laws of war).
To be held in Guantanamo, an individual MUST be an illegal combatant (violated the laws of war). There is no chance McKinnon falls under this category.
Furthermore, the US government has explicitly stipulated that he will be tried under civilian courts.
McKinnon's lawyers are simply doing their job and advancing any claim against extradition they can think of, but the argument is completely invalid.
Did you miss his subject line? It says "Ignoramus is right". That would appear to be talking about you. :)
I think he replied to the wrong person. That's all.
If they can do it to Jose Pilla who was a citizen, then they can do it to anyone.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Remember that the U.S. has not signed on to the International Criminal Court for roughly the same reasons. If the US had signed on, then US servicemen or polititians could be hauled into the ICC on suspicion of war crimes and not given all the safeguards that the U.S. court system has. I guess that bit about "All men are created equal" needs revision now.
Statement 2:
Ever heard something about "not guilty unless proven guilty"? If there's no trial, then in my opinion it follows immediately that he didn't commit the crime (or at least, that he cannot be charged for it).
Georg
Hmm.. yes I did miss it. But the "shutting your idiot mouth" got me seeing red and so off I went.
I think he replied to the wrong person. That's all.
If that is true, I apologise.
So, why would a British citizen be held there. He wasn't caught in Iraq or Afghanistan as an enemy combatant. It's just an attempt to pull at the heart strings of the British public to cause an outcry over his extridition. I guess you can't blame him for trying though.
Damn right! Those bastards should have carpet bombed the States.
Not entirely. As far as the (some innocent, some not) people from Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever... well, I feel bad for them, but I also feel bad for all the kids starving in China, or dying of AIDS in Africa, or... well, you get the picture.
But criminal though he may be, and terrorist, probably... Jose Padilla is an American citizen. The fact that it took three years of legal wrangling to force the government to charge him with a crime is everything the constitution was written to prevent.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The UK does have laws against this. His alleged actions do break them. He should be tried in the UK and if found guilty be appropriately punished.
He should not be extradited to America for crimes he committed while in the UK, and he should definitely not be left vulnerable to indefinite detention without trial.
As a side note, the British Government are committed to attaining the release of any British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay; if the Americans did put him there they'd have to release him back to the UK again or risk a massive diplomatic incident. The US authorities aren't that daft; they'll just throw the book at him in the federal courts. The defense against extradition is raising Guantanamo as entirely that - a defense against extradition.
"The unlawful detention of "enemy combatants" ": We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection.
How do you know that? What assurances do we have that these men are combatants of any sort? None! If these men are in fact combatants, why have 167 of them been sent home? If everything in guantanamo is hunky dory, why won't the US let the UN talk to the prisoners? Even China didn't refuse that!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
your words are wasted on that moron
and your sig have caused me some serious cognitive dissonance.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Amnesty International has an anti-US slant
Yeah, they hate Freedom!
OR, Amnesty International has an anti-'unjust detention' slant, and the U.S. happens to have fallen in the 'bad guys' camp on this issue. That would of course mean that U.S. isn't magically perfect and incapable of wrong-doing, which is obviously an insane position to take. Obviously, anyone who criticises the U.S. actions has an irrational bias!
if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
One word: Gandhi .
You can't take the sky from me...
It's Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan where most of the "unlawful combatants" were harvested.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
But you're saving some of us the trouble and we do appreciate it, hence your incredible karma harvest from this thread ;). Your reasoning is sound and it's despicable that the international community lets such flagrant violations of international law and the rules of war by the US go by unchecked. If we're at war, the rules of war apply, if we're not at war then the president cannot assume wartime powers. They want it both ways.
And as for people saying we will process war criminals when the "war ends" or when "Al Queda surrenders" these are laughable concepts (if they weren't so unfunny). The US is waging a War on Terrorism. A concept, a method of fighting. A literal eternal struggle has been set up. And besides the fact that there will always be a group willing to bomb something for their ideals, this administration has been gradually increasing the scope of what they define as terrorism. Very soon now anyone performing an act of a violent nature will be considered a 'terrorist' unless they are doing it in military uniform by a recognized country. Even then I'm willing to bet regimes the US chooses not to recognize politcally will be labeled as terrorist armies, despite being armies of sovereign nations. Uh, well this was meant to be a short reply, sorry for venting to the quire, as it were. Keep up the good posts.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
the content of your message and your sig are making my head hurt. I didn't think it was possible to be worse than this pairing.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
For morons like you who don't understand what this means, it essentially boils down to the requirement that the punishment for a crime has to fit the seriousness of the crime. You can't get a death sentence for stealing a pack of bubble gum, for example; and that's not just because the law doesn't allow for it. It's because such a law would be unconstitutional.
No, but you can get 25 years to life, and that has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. Elsewhere in the world we would consider that "cruel and unusual", but there you go. I guess in most other Western nations we consider the death penalty unacceptable, so it's already pretty clear that Americans tolerate draconian punishments far more readily than many.
I don't think he's moaning about "doing the time" he's just complaining about being treated as a "terrorist" and all the fun that involves.
Jail time - fair enough. Guantanamo Bay, perhaps not...
Well, he is lucky enough to live in a country that allows you to have legal representation, due process, and all that jazz.
This would be a non story if he were in the US. Few people hear about who gets detained at Guantanamo. Fortunately, Guantanamo is small, so you have to be of special interest to get an invitation to stay there. When the US government starts talking about using an entire island for these kinds of camps, I would be in the market for a safer country to live in. Bright men have considered using Madagascar as a good sized prison before. I'm sure there are other suitable locations as well for such a thing.
There are plenty of us who are troubled by it. Just not the 51% that it would take to get rid of the moron that currently resides at the White House. The last two races were close. Very close. Hopefully by the coming election enough of the brighter neocons (an oxymoron if ever there was one) will wake up and see how our country had been trashed by all these events, and we'll get in a more reasonable administration.
If there are chances that the burglar goes to some concentration camp instead of a normal prison, we continue talking about this matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I wish I could mod you up to 100, this is EXACTLY the sort of information Americans need to wake them up from the narcotic that is MSM tee vee news.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Has it ever come to your mind that "the rules of war" are made up by the powerful nations? Take the example of the international criminal court: The USA will not ratify the international criminal court unless it is made sure that US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes. Furthermore, the USA simply stated that everybody arrested in Guantanamo is exempted from the Geneva conventions. Why? Well, because.
While a little bit of collateral damage (i.e., a few hundred dead civilians) is perfectly acceptable when a missile misses its target, its against "the rules of war" to blow yourself up in midst a crowd of civilians. Certain countries are not allowed to own atomic weapons. Which countries define who's allowed to? Well, the countries that already own atomic weapons.
Georg
He deserves whatever he gets.. No sympathy for a criminal.
The whole premise of this story is based on a lawyers statement. One that is obviously designed to create the largest amount of publicity for his client. I applaud the lawyer as he is doing what he was hired to do. I laugh at those who consider the lawyers statement to have any basis in fact.
The story even states that the man is to be tried in a US Federal court. Which means no Military tribunal, thus no Gitmo.
The whole Gitmo question has to do with the new nature of the conflict that the US and the western world is involved in. The old rules not only do not apply, they can be used against the west.
I am not proposing that Gitmo is the right choice and I 100% do NOT condone torture. I am simply stating that gitmo is a poor first attempt at solving a new problem. What does one do with captives from an undeclared war that does not have a single nationality to focus on?
If the US was any other country in the world we would use the absolute rules of war and what is the allowable punishment for spies? Which is what most terrorists would be classified under the rules of war.
The US and the West have a long way to go before an acceptable solution is found. I would be interested in hearing constructive ideas on what that solution might be.
The truth is very easy to know. All you have to do is take your own thought up there one step further and ask yourself: "if the answer is 'more trnsparency', who is it that has been going out of their way to prevent more transparency: the inmates at Guantanamo Bay or the Bush administration?".
I find it an incredibly useful tool to get to the truth on a lot of things: whenever you look at any situation whatsoever, ask yourself "who is profiting from this"?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
If we're treating them so well, and everything's all nice and legal and on the up-and-up, why not imprison them on American soil?
And as someone else pointed out, many of these detainees were turned in by bounty hunters who got paid by the head. I doubt there was a lot of discriminating intelligence involved in that rounding-up process.
Bush is a cylon.
If they are not POWs, then they are protected persons under the fourth geneva convention and if they're breaking the law (by murdering, etc.) then they are to be tried by the occupied country, and are given numerous protections from the occupied power: namely, the occupied power cannot transfer them out of the occupied country.
There is no legal backing or precedent for treating people as this mysterious "enemy combatant" category, a classification that affords people neither the protection of the 4th geneva convention nor the protections of POW status.
-bugg
Actually I think pretty much everyone agrees that giving them due process in an actual hearing with the ability to enter evidence, review the evidence against them (currently almost all of the "reviews" include secret evidence that cannot be refuted by the accused because they don't know what it is the government is even alleging) and in general be afforded the actual protections outlined for POWs or enemy soldiers under the Geneva conventions WOULD be acceptable. The Geneva conventions define enemy soldiers, POWs and civilian criminals, the "unlawful combatant" term is one which was invented by the US government to do an end-run around the convention and essentially process prisoners however they choose. Lest you forget the US agreed to the Geneva conventions, including the intent that they covered all forms of prisoners captured in wartime. Following the conventions would be acceptable to all.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Nope, Texas law does not apply here, international law does. And that requires due process as part of the extradition agreement.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Extradition is a legal process not a military one. If he's to be extradited, it should be to the US legal system, not the US military. It's pretty simple.
If England's going to give him to the US military to be inhumanely treated, that's called rendition.
This guy was on the news a few days ago. He is not a hacker, he infact clearly corrected anyone who called him a hacker. He was a script kiddy, he got in over his head and he knew it. He got caught and openly admitted everything, he told them what programs he downloaded to use and exactly how he did it (he basicly port sniffed the hell out of the system and then kept trying default passwords and blank passwords untill he found something intresting).
The guy is afraid the US wants to make an example of him. He's clearly pointed out under the current "anti terror" laws, he could be arrested and held without trial untill they decide to let him go. Now maybe it's just me here, but I'm also afraid of these anti terror laws. After all he commited the crime on UK soil, he has hence broken the British laws, so he should be put on trial here. Where the crime was commited and where he believes he will get a fair trial.
I like muppets.
Oh, come on... Australia seems to have turned out fairly well, considering the circumstances ;o). Shame that they've got this concept of a prison (with walls and what not), rather then just sorta turnin' 'em loose and making sure nobody gets off the island.
I'd rather be banished to a nice remote South Pacific island than get stuck in some "bend 'em over" security prison any day.
I'm American, and your post may get jokes like that from some, but not from me. You're dead on. It reminds me of when I was in a taxi in Dominica going from the airport to town. The roads weren't very good and the car had a cracked windshield. The driver made a comment about how there wasn't as much civilization as in America. I responded, "Civilization isn't about roads and cars. It's about how people behave."
If only this Administration understood that.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
And anyway, why exactly should anyone be sent to a gulag out of anyone's oversight? Why should a British hacker be sent there? If he's a criminal, he should be put to trial, not lynched in the true American Way.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Completely naive. So you're never going to say anything against the current or future administrations? Because we've **all** broken the law in some way. And given enough trawling, and records, I bet I could find something to charge you with.
Get your own free personal location tracker
"Dude", what the fuck are you talking about? You have invented some kind of amazing new technology that can identify a terrorist visually? You can't just shoot people that have been accused (probably due to political reasons) of something. You have to prove it using an open system. What if (surprise surprise) your administration has been lying to you (WMD's?), and most of those people in Guantanamo are just poor schmoes who happened to be in Afghanistan, and didn't like the US steamroller rolling right over them.
They might not. I grant you. They might all be highly dangerous terrorists who have a pile of nukes hidden somewhere, and thus can't be let out. But if that's the case, charge them, convict them (fairly), and play the game by the rules.
Get your own free personal location tracker
This might get long winded, but it's on a particular subject that I find to be rather serious, so please, bear with me.
Amnesty International does not have an anti-US slant. You are mistaking their opposition towards detaining masses of people without due process and torturing them to get information from them as bias against the United States. The unprovoked abuse of prisoners is not an accusation by Amnesty International, but rather, by the FBI, and most would consider this the tip of the iceberg, as the government is in the business of media-friendly-spin. Do a google search, it's fairly well known... how it is that people get this idea in their heads that life is peachy keen at a concentration camp, I'll never know. Oh, and of course they are fed and given semi-clean quarters; anything less would be a giant target painted on the United States and its military for international ridicule, and as we're on thin ice enough as it is, they are at least smart enough not to be so brashly cruel. Starvation, beatings, sleep-deprivation, and other torture techniques can be blamed on a myriad of inter-prisoner problems. As long as you sweep the cells and wash the dishes, you can stave off accusations of abuse for years.
Furthermore, we have broken the rules of warfare outright by keeping so many "enemy combatants" imprisoned without allowing them any access to the outside world, let alone any rights of any kind... but as we already told the U.N. it has not power over us, there is no one to bring us to trial. As the link between Iraq and bin Laden has already been disproved, again and again, one does wonder how exactly an Iraqi soldier has broken the rules of war, mmm? By fighting against us? Not only that, but holding soldiers from the old Taliban regime is a rather grand stretch unless, by due process of law, you can prove they had ties to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Otherwise, they were doing their job as soldiers.
In fact, the term "enemy combatant" was invented to weasel out of calling our opponents "soldiers", thus giving the military the barest sliver of justification for breaking the rules of warfare. If they were legally defined as "soldiers", they could not be held without due process, legal counsel, or access to the outside world, including friends and family. Abuse would be out of the fucking question, let alone torture.
I would say the greatest obstacle towards understanding the reality of the situation for so many of my fellow Americans is our innately violent tempers. I remember a majority of the people I spoke to for weeks after 9/11 speaking about simply bombing or nuking the country with the responsible group out of existence, not joking in the slightest. I often wonder how many people will ever realize how dark and evil such a thought is?
Anyway, my opposition does not mainly come from any objection towards violence, far from it: violence is simply another form of interaction between entities, and is quite necessary to make sure the bloodthirsty don't have their way with the world. My opposition comes from the extremely dishonorable behavior exhibited by the military by slithering out of the rules of the Geneva Convention by using the term "enemy combatant", and for the light-heartedness with which we invaded Iraq, and our insulting behavior towards the UN. Honor is a serious thing, whether or not people push past their misconceptions of it. As if all of that weren't enough, I can't help but feel that the desensitization of the American public through television and such hasn't created apathy, but rather, a willingness to accept brutality as a way of life rather than working towards something better. I hear it echoed every time someone tells me "The only reason you can criticize your government is because we live in a civilized society, why don't you try that in (insert random violent government/country)." Idiots. Where do they think this society came from? Just by luck, just by our birth on this land? We live in this society because we made it as best
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
What you're complaining about is essentially the role of GITMO; evaluate questionable personnel captured on the battfield (admittedly sometimes by mistake) and determine if they pose a threat to the US either domesticaly or abroad. Once they have been cleared, which in no way is a sign of innocence, just a belief that they are no longer a threat, they are shipped back to their country of origin. Many of those release have been tried and found guilty in the courts of their home country based on the actions that lead to their being sent to GITMO in the first place and at least 12 released detainees have been recaptured or killed while taking part in further actions against the US.
As for the Chinese, the very article you cite does more to prove the case for the kindness of the US that disprove it. The US does not want to send them back to China because they may face persecution for their political or religous beliefs. They also do not want to give them asylum within the US because that would lead to a precedent that no one wants to see set so until such time as they can find a safe place to send these 'prisoners' they will hold them at GITMO. This has happened several times before as prisoners have outright refused to board awaiting planes because the felt safer at GITMO than at home.
Chances are these Chinese, now cleared, are being treated quite well, with stories more akin to these kids than of the images you seem to have stuck in your head.
But you seem to be all for the US sending them back to China where the meaning of the word 'torture' still resembles the one in the dictionary as opposed to the type of 'torture' their may receive in US hands, like 3 squares a day, prayer rugs, all the Korans they can handle, and most likely access to the sports facilities.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Where are the enemy soldiers who had the "simple armband"?
Back home in other jobs. Most of the enemy troops were released at some point. In Iraq many of these now occupy positions in their new army and police force. Most of them weren't specifically hostile to the U.S., they were following commanders' orders. People that continue to be detained were individuals who proved their interest in harm to the U.S. and others.
I love my sig.
It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down"
This is just a statement of political opinion and does not address prison conditions, which are quite good. The great majority of American disagree with this, as does the Supreme Court. AA doesn't speak to the conditions at Gitmo, because they are quite good. The symbolism of Gitmo is in their mind only. The people down there are given due process through a military tribunal. Many of these prisoners have been repatriated only encountered again on the battlefield. Remember that they are enemy combatants, not US citizens. When the war on terror is over and we have Osama on a spit, then they can go home.
an ill wind that blows no good
I would like to get rid of the moron currently in office, unfortunately the system is set up to put another moron in his place. Many of the votes for Bush in the last election were of the sort "Better the moron we already have experience with than one we don't" If Bush were to be impeached, Cheney is scheduled to be up at bat.
Huh? Are you nuts? It might be just me, but there's this bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" in that old document... it's called the "Bill of Rights". Ever heard of it?
I've never cared too much about this. Maybe that's because I'm not a criminal trying to get away with something. Hm.
Lemme guess, registered Republican? Go back to listening to Hannity and let grownups run the country for a change.
Let's not forget the very real possibility of torture.
Man, I'm glad someone here had the patience to respond to this kid's ignorrant comments. Those US soldiers do have alot of self-control. I know if it was me there, I'd probably be going berserker.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Four words: "Bleeding Heart Activist Attorneys"
The ramifications are obvious. No need to spell it all out for you, is there?
Your ignorance is stunning and the morals you put up for display despicable. So as long as there are worse prisons in the world Guantanmo is OK? Way to go. Just show me one prison anywhere in Europe where prisoners have to be force fed through their nostrils. As the parent post was pointing out many of the inmates have been sold by bounty hunters for cash. There is no way to know if they deserve to be imprisoned because there was no trial. This goes against every ideal America stands for. The fact that you can not see this bodes ill for the country. Too many Unamericans like you have lost their moral compass and are happy to trash all the principles this country was founded on.
The reason we have those laws in place is because of an assumption on the part of the Founding Fathers that whenever the government is not being completely transparent, then it's up to no good. People in power always need a watchdog.
well he was either very good to be able to do what he did or very stupid to get caught,either way maybe the US government should offer him a job,at least he could show them how he did it and then put measures in place to make sure it can not happen again,otherwise the next time they might not be so lucky and it coulod be someone or some group with bad intentions.
Are you stupid or maybe related to Pres. Bush?
The USofA is criticised for good reason, at least since the end of WWII they have claimed to be the leader of the so called 'Free World'.
And that leadership comes with some obligations like 'Fair Trial'.
The detainees at Gitmo don't get that fair trial but are abused instead.
There are international laws that do allow for special treatment for non-combatant enemies, the US can do so in a regular court.
Just as the US would have expected from other nations only some 20 years ago...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Thanks, but you didn't answer my question.
It's one thing to be upset about transparency (and your exposition on the value of transparency leads me to believe you didn't read the last part of my post) but it's something else entirely to take the claims of prisoners at face value.
"America's an absolute discrace"
What's the point of that? How does that elevate the discussion? How do comments like that do anything to help with understanding?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Except that the Civil War and WWII were very much existential wars that were largely unavoidable and pushed the U.S. to extremes. The current wars are very much wars of choice (what used to be called "cabinet wars") in which 9/11 was seized as the pretext for a vast power grab in the center of world oil production, in which "fighting terrorism" is largely a rhetorical device.
So in essence you're saying a war of choice necessitates torture and abandonment of the rule of law -- that what we choose automatically becomes a necissity. Nice logic.
James Yee, American soldier, Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo. Was captured at an airport once he left duty as chaplain, detained at Guantanamo for quite some time, no trial, nothing. And that's just one I know off the top of my head.
Why dont the US try him in Britain under British laws? He 'll get punished without going to Guadanamo Bay.
Osama must be laughing his ass off at such a spineless attitude.
Well spoken!
And I cry for the people of the once Free World.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
There is a pretty simple explaination for that, as someone accidentily pointed out earlier (in a Chrisitan Science Monitor article about some Chinese which actually ran counter to their point), once detainees reach American soil they are given certain rights which no one in the government wants, namely the right to apply for asylum.
As long as they are on American controlled territory outside of the US, their treatment may be dictated by US law, but once their confinement is over they can be returned to their country of origin without much legal wrangling. If they were being held somewhere within the 50 states, then they would have to be deported, which depending on which country they are legally a citizen of, could give them grounds for aplying for sanctuary, which based on their specific case details, the US government may be legally required to offer them.
The fact that the US is currently holding upwards of 8 cleared detainees at GITMO simply because they would face persecution from their homelands should they be retured there, show that this concern is very real. While they feel for these people and will not send them back home to face punishment for their political or religous beliefs, they also don't want to give them US citizenship.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
And conversely, secret courts are by definition unconstitutional!!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Simply because warcrimes have happened in the past doesn't make it acceptable to commit them now. The Japanese detainment was an embarassment to us, and we as a nation have tried to compensate for what we did to them, and formal apologies have been issued. In the past, men claimed women as property. Does that make it right to have happened then? Does it make it right for it to happen now? We should be trying to learn from our mistakes, not using our mistakes as justification for further errors of judgement.
So just living here means I deserve any shit I have to put up with here? You sir are full of shit. What do you expect me to do, bust into Guantamano and start a jailbreak? I have serious problems with much of what is going on, but please tell me, what can I do? I think that Congress shouldn't give Bush any more money until he puts the people on trial; I think the courts should have demanded that everyone at Guantamano be charged and tried within a reasonable amount of time. I, however, can do none of this.
PS. The word is disgrace.
You (and most of those arguing with you) don't seem to understand the fundamental problem with Guantanamo isn't whether the prisoners are being tortured. The problem is that people are being thrown in a detainment facility, with no trial, and no access to the outside world. THIS goes against the most basic principles of the United States. But even beyond this, some your statements are absurd.
These are non-uniformed combatants... They waged war against our country...
Um, what? What uniforms should they wear, since we effectively destroyed whatever government they had and plunged them into anarchy? Also, I know the Ministry of Truth makes it difficult, but try to remember that WE waged war on THEM.
You go on to detail how poorly the prisoners behave... that's because they're fucking prisoners! We invaded their country and took them captive, and because they fight back we label them all terrorists? We went into Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism (well, first it was WMD, then terrorism in general, then tyranny, but who's keeping track?)... it is likely that there were/are terrorists in Iraq (just as in other parts of the middle east, just as in other parts of the world), but we have taken the stance that ANYONE who defends themselves against the U.S. "liberators" is a terrorist. Wake up.
So perhaps a stint at Gitmo is like a mini-vacation. Perhaps they give all the prisoners manicures and Egyptian cotton sheets. The point is that we have summarily classified a group of people to having NO RIGHTS, simply because a few of them pose a threat. Demonize them and call them all enemy combatants or terrorists, and keep believing that your government is guilty of no wrong-doing...
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
The way it's presented in the United States is that they are released with the question of whether or not they were combatants presumed already answered in the affirmative and that either they have determined that the political climate has changed enough that they are no longer a threat, or they will be monitored in the wild for the potential to gain useful intelligence.
The entire rest of the world ought to be punishing us with embargos and other economic sanctions -- we deserve it for letting the Bush Administration get away with something so blatantly unconstitutional and wrong!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Not really of special interest unless you count buying people from unscrupulous individuals with an axe to grind against someone they dislike.
Habeas Schmabeas (link to rm stream) from This American Life. The summary is in the 2006 archives. Of particular interest is the story at the end about England's foray into the same thing Bush did at Gitmo, as well as the perspective on Puritan terrorism in England.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Except Yee was never detained at GITMO. He was arrested in Florida and then held at the naval base in Charleston, South Carolina.
His case does look like an over zealous move by Maj. Gen. G. Miller, but since it appears no case was actually presented, just a lot of charges, and this was an internal military and not civil action, which has it's own set rules, it's hard to use that as an example even if he was detained in Cuba.
But that's all moot anyways because he wasn't, but thanks for playing anyway.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Oops, the Puritan Terrorism segment is about 32:20 minutes into the show ~ "Sept 11, 1660".
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Bush has explicitly stated that he claims the "right" to ignore the law whenever it suits him. In other words, Bush is a DICTATOR now, as long as the public continues to fail to defend the Constitution by overthrowing him.
So yeah, what you or I know about the law is irrelevant, because Bush could have anyone sent to Gitmo at will.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You've got the administration's goal and method reversed.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
I believe that Guantanamo is used as a symbol to Islamists that the United States is ready and willing to do everything that is necessary to win, even if that means bending (or reinterpreting) some of our more cherished values.
Typical conservative. Too preoccupied with sending the right message to even begin to consider the real-world implications of what they're doing. What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?
As extreme as that may sound to the modern reader, note that it's really not that much of a departure from wartimes of the past.
So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.
Now the real question is (and this is one where I feel that reasonable people can disagree): Does the threat of terrorism constitute a danger to our survival as a nation to the point where such sacrifices in personal liberties are necessary?
Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.
I think that Guantanamo should be reserved for terrorists and terrorist supporters only.
The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process? Answer: You're going to let your big paternalistic government do it. Bush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?
Except that the Civil War and WWII were very much existential wars that were largely unavoidable and pushed the U.S. to extremes. The current wars are very much wars of choice...
In what way did we choose to be attacked during September 11th? I argue that the Afghan and Iraqi invasions were indeed choices, but strategic choices in a larger conflict with Islamic extremists which engaged us first, without our consent.
So in essence you're saying a war of choice necessitates torture and abandonment of the rule of law -- that what we choose automatically becomes a necissity. Nice logic.
Reading comprehension is a valuable ability that comes with practice. I suggest you begin brushing up on this skill by re-reading what I said before making any more claims about my logic.
In case that fails, lest more words get forcefully placed in my mouth, I'll restate my argument: National survival trumps individual rights. In times of dire need, the state may choose to curtail rights that would, under other circumstances, be guaranteed. This has been upheld in the Supreme court numerous times. Now, reasonable people can disagree on whether the current "War on Terrorism" constitutes such a threat, but the current administration (with the backing, or non-opposition, of Congress) is arguing that it does; hence, Guantanamo, NSA wiretapping, and so on.
-Grym
One thing i haven't seen in the comments is the difference between the Uk and US operation of their extradition treaty. The UK government seems to be happy to go along with the US and extradite people, but the reverse hasn't been true to date. I'm thinking of the suspected IRA members that the UK wanted, but the US wouldn't extradite, as I think the US considered them 'political activists' where the UK considered them to be terrorists.
I suspect a lot of folk here learnt some of their networking skills doing much what this guy did, albeit before it was illegal, and I for one think the massive fines/prison sentences the US metes out are way over the top. I think the worst he could get here is 5 years, more likely to be 2 or 3. So yes this is probably legal shenanningans to try and avoid extradition, but if it was me I know where I'd prefer to be tried.
So you've never broken a speed limit, lied to get out of jury duty, consumed alcohol before the age of 21, had sex before the age of 18, smoked a joint, or witnessed anyone else doing any of these things and not reported it (thereby aiding and abetting)? I congratulate you! You will be the last American left alive after all the others are brutally tortured to death for their crimes.
By the way, in addition to the common law tradition that punishment should be proportional to the crime, the men who wrote the US constitution probably thought it was worth emphasising because each and every one of them were criminals--terrorists, in fact. Insurgents against their own British government. But obviously you don't think the protection should have been extended to them--so I guess maybe the constitution shouldn't have been written in the first place?
Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?
Road to Guantanamo
Great movie.
More info at
Channel 4's site on Road to Guantanamo
http://use.perl.org
"Thanks, but you didn't answer my question"
How have I not answered your question? Your questions:
"but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel."
"How are they suddenly credible?"
"why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications"
My answer was that it is not that we are automatically believing the accused are innocent, the problem we have is that they are not being given chance to defend themselves and claim their innocence, they are being held without being charged, and those who have been released, have been released without explanation as to why they were held, or any kind of most basic apology.
That said, if someone's not given chance by someone to say "it wasn't me", "I didn't do it", it makes you wonder why!
"How does that elevate the discussion?"
I already said what I intended to to help understanding and "elevate the discussion", and everyone who understands why I say what I did above that statement fully understands why I made the statement itself. America IS proving itself to be a complete disgrace (spelt right this time tho). You can't kidnap people outside the law (changing the law to allow you to kidnap people doesn't count), outside all human rights, and not expect the world get become furious with you. The only reason America's not in half as much trouble as it is at this moment is that the people doing the fighting (against) are religious nuts, which alienates themselves from the rest of the world who would actually agree with them more than they agree with what America is doing. But that won't last forever.
</rant>
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
The above options seem to apply to most people in Guantanamo, seeing how most of them were just farmers and cab drivers snatched by bounty hunters working to maximize their profits.
If they had done anything criminal, they would have had their days in court, long ago.
Bush government is responsible for guaranteeing that they respect the human rights of everyone, they are signators to International Human Rights Treaties, and kidnapping, torturing, and punishing people without due course or trial is not abiding by those treaties.
I dare say that every person on this planet deserves to have a fair trial before they are imprisoned or punished. This is the hallmark of civilization. Anything less is medieval. Torture is outright barbaric and a blatant crime against the treaties. Torture has never produced anything of value, only more enemies.
I hope you realise that your standing on the sidelines knowing absolutely nothing substantial about the case and wishing this man be raped, beaten, tortured and whatever else, in retribution for computer crime, is essentially the same thing as mediaeval mobs cheering a lynching or torturing of someone who has committed a crime. While you are completely ignorant about this man, what he has done, and his situation, you feel qualified to condemn him, and not just to some kind of ordinary punishment, but actually something extremely cruel, inhumane and vicious. You obviously take pleasure in the thought of this being inflicted on him, and I suspect the only thing stopping you from wanting to do it to him yourself is that it would not be socially acceptable. Better to sit back and watch it on reality TV. You are the kind of person who makes others ashamed to be human beings.
A small point of contention.
While it is true that legally the Constitution give congress the sole power to 'declare war', it does not actually do much to limit the President's ability to instigate 'military actions'.
After consulting with congress and gaining their concent, which was the case of the Iraq war, the President is well within his legal rights to take military action to defend US interests without a formal declaration of war. There's even a lot of debate as to whether or not Congressional concent is even a legal hinderence to the President to act at all.
The actual declaration is a formality that is often seen as unnecessary and time consuming. In most cases, the procedure is for congress to issue a resolution supporting the President's use of force without formally declaring war. Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?
You may want to calm down and do a little reading before declaring something unconstitutional. And stop with the excessive shouting, despite what you may think, it does nothing to help your case.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?
What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?
So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.
The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.
Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.
I'll grant you that the invocation of war powers with regard to the "War on Terrorism" is a subjective decision and a slippery slope, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights. Similarly, if the threat of extraterrestrial invasion (I assume that's what you mean: "take me to your leader"-aliens) were realistic, the same would apply. Obviously, the third was just thrown in to be ridiculous, so no, because republicans losing power does not constitute a threat to national survival like the first two examples.
The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process?
I'll refer you to my original post. What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair? No. But such acts of survival, while failing our strictest Western ideals, are just as legitimate as, for example, killing in personal self-defense.
ush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?
Now you're just being ridiculous. There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo? Why are all these people able to so publicly... um.. . express themselves?
-Grym
My point, simply, is that this is now a part of what the United States of America stands for, and I'm ashamed that we're doing this kind of thing. I'm proud of my nation on the whole, but I simply can't condone this--it isn't right to treat another human being in this fashion, even if they are criminals or terrorists, and from a pragmatic point of view, it isn't in the best interest of the American people to so willfully and imperiously discard lessons we've learned from centuries of being the world's standard-bearer when it came to human rights and justice. I would much prefer our nation stand firmly on just ground and face the associated risks with our heads high and our conscience clear--far better that than to constantly flirt with the detestible and twist in the wind to justify actions that are reprehensible to any reasonable person. I am but speaking my mind on this point.
Not only is the type of thing we're doing at Guantanamo something we'd never want our own troops exposed to, it's something we should never call on our own men and women to perform on other human beings. If we're not willing to set the right example--even if it means we're exposed to greater risk of attack--we cannot expect goodwill in return, and it will be by the superior grace of others that our troops receive humane treatment when they are captured. I want my nation to be the best nation it can be, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay simply does not fall in line with my values. I live in a major east coast city, so I'm acutely aware of the fact that my life could be less safe as a result of treating detainees in a humane manner--but it's a risk I'm willing to face in the name of making America the greatest nation it can be.
I am a firm believer in the power of magnanimity, and I'm genuinely saddened that our nation has so eagerly cast it aside in favor of arrogance, brutality and force. I want desperately to restore America's image as an unwavering beacon of goodness and justice for all the world to follow.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Also, unlike the gulags, those put there were caught red-handed committing atrocities. [...] You have to be a very bad person to end up there.
As the other poster pointed out, this is not necessarily true. Caught red-handed by whom? Most of the detainees aren't in there as a result of American investigations. It's not a prison for convicted criminals, it's a round-up camp for suspected troublemakers (read: GULAG). If you actually had to be bad to end up there, there would be trials and convictions.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Alleged British hacker? This is outrageous. No person should be punished until they have been proven to be British beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since the US government is representing in open court that he's not going to go to Guantanamo (read the article), what he's doing is asserting that the US government is lying and possibly purveying false documents purportedly from the US embassy in London in a UK court.
He obviously hopes for a lighter sentence from a UK trial.
Similarly, if a 'military action' resembles a war in all ways -- and everything from Korea to Iraq does -- then it is, in fact, a war!
Look, it's obvious that Jefferson et al. intended for only Congress to be able to approve large scale "military actions" like these, whether the Constitution manages to state that fact in a legally-binding way or not. Therefore, the various presidents' circumvention of Congress is unconstitutional according to an originalist interpretation (which, apparently, describes my personal ideology).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In point of fact, most of the detainees were simply purchased by the military -- not captured as Bush has repeatedly lied. 5% were captured by the military, 86% were turned over by foreign entities in exchange for money.
Why not get the facts (you'll have to look at the PDF) from someone who is in't a bald faced liar.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The US could make the argument that he should be rendered to Guantanamo. It is not. It's saying he's getting a federal trial on hacking charges. He's accusing the US government of lying to the UK government in open court in the UK. If he's right, that's going to absolutely ruin *any* extradition request from anywhere to the US, going forward for a long time.
It's highly unlikely he's going to Guantanamo and against the interests of the US government if they were to change their tune post extradition.
Furthermore, the USA simply stated that everybody arrested in Guantanamo is exempted from the Geneva conventions. Why? Well, because.
Well, yeah. Because the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. These guys were neither uniformed not soldiers of any government. That is why Geneva does not apply.
While a little bit of collateral damage (i.e., a few hundred dead civilians) is perfectly acceptable when a missile misses its target, its against "the rules of war" to blow yourself up in midst a crowd of civilians.
I think the main difference here is that when you blow yourself up in a crowd of civilians, your target is the civilians . When a US missile goes astray and lands in a neighborhood, it was an accident, and the US apologizes repeatedly for it. I have yet to hear Bin Laden apologize for the accidental civilian deaths on 9-11. That's the difference between collateral damage and plain old targets.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I highly doubt that they will extradite him directly to Guantanamo.
Right... they'll probably stop in Egypt on the way so they can have him interrogated.
Basic timelines of trials start with investigating a suspect, charging him, asking for extradition if some other jurisdiction has the defendant, holding the trial (in all its phases), coming to a verdict, and finally punishment if there's a guilty verdict. There are possible appeals at every phase starting the moment you're charged on. There are a few stubborn family members who file appeals to clear people who served their full sentence and are dead.
It's just silly to say that he shouldn't be charged if there isn't a trial.
Now being held indefinitely without trial sounds much more like what you do to a POW. They're out of circulation for the duration of the war, period. Since the US government says this is a criminal and not a war matter, the US' highly stringent pre-trial detention rules (you can hold onto somebody a lot longer in Europe) apply.
I disagree. This nation was founded on principles of individual liberty - if we can no longer uphold those while defending our nation, our nation is no longer worth defending.
Why, yes, they all need a watchdog. Unfortunately, what's going on is that the US government, which has a long track record of telling the truth in extradition hearings, says that it's not going to be a terror trial and Guantanamo is not in the cards. The prisoner says they're lying and his record of probity and truth telling before the court simply doesn't match up.
Watchdogs can be fooled and the US government should at least be entitled to the benefit of the doubt that they're not going to slit their own throats on all extradition hearings for the next decade.
It's not that far from "military order number one" to "catch twenty-two".
No, it's a sign to Muslims that America is going to profile people based on religion. They've threatened Muslims like the Lackawanna Six and John Walker Lindh with Guantanamo without trial, unless they pleaded guilty (because there wasn't enough proof to prosecute in an actual trial). In the meantime, how come Dr. Goldstein, a Florida man involved with the JDL who tried to blow up a mosque, wasn't tried under the same Patriot Act laws?
The US released hundreds of inmates from Guantanamo once they found they were innocent, and by most accounts there are plenty more innocent inside.
Correct, the word sure is disgrace.
As for being full of shit, untrue, sorry. Sure you may not deserve to be bombed, but I didn't say that you do. I referenced America as a whole... Shrub isn't in power for no reason, America put him and his "administration" there, pay money that gives him power, etc etc, and as an entity, will (and to a small extent, are already) pay the price for that.
I'm sorry for everyone who gets caught up in it. I am totally against taking out the issues of a government/army against it's civilians, which is why I said "I am more and more feeling" rather than "I feel" [that it's deserved]. I disagree with these "terrorists" because so many of their targets are civilian, not government/military.
Unfortunately for you, the people who "represent" you are really really fucking up things for you, and as a person who is "represented" by them, you, to an extent, will share some of the worldwide anger they are creating. No it's not right, no it's not fair, nothing they are doing is. And this just makes us angier.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
How does nobody believe that? The US has Chinese people in Guantanamo, and arrested German and Bosnian citizens and moved them to "Black sites." How much more likely is this man to face that?
How are they suddenly credible? Simple, we have FBI reports and ex-interrogator accounts, and former guards who all seem to repeat the same actions and events.
If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. Besides, I'm sick of installing update after update on the systems in our company just because some hacker has nothing better to do with his life. What about a girlfriend, a hobb, a pet - anything other than "how can I get back at MS and all the people that refuse to adopt LINUX"... If the penalties for hackers are tougher, maybe it will discouraged this disruptive behavior.
What do you think would happen? There is a country that holds people without trial for as long as they like. Any other country than the US would be considered an enemy of the free world BY the US. What do you think the rest of the world thinks about G'Bay? Doh!
If you take a look here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
You'll see that crime as a absolute number peaked in the early 90's and has been going down. In fact, despite a 20% greater population, the absolute crime numbers are about where they were in the mid 80's. If you scale according to population, crime rates are down to where they were in the early 60's (if not mid 50's).
This is probably due to a lot of factors, one of which is the aging of the population in general.
Nonetheless, serious crime has been on a downward trend in the U.S. for about 15 years.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Yes, but Condileeza Rice seems to avoid that point. Her answer appeared to be, We ask them and if they say no, we ship them off.
Almost 95% of the detainees were turned over to the US Troops in return for large bounties.
According to the US goverment only 8% of the detainees were ever al Qaeda fighters.
Americans have bled and died defending our constitution, and idiots like you who so blindly allow it to be bastardized by this farce of a president, embarrass the rest of us.
your suggesting that if they are in a war zone, with a Kalishnikov, (which i understand is standard garb in war zone for everyone including civees) they are by definition unprotected by the Geneva convention?
I would suggest that foriegners in one's one country with arms and no uniforms would be unprotected - but in their own country? That pushes the envelope - so our own soldiers, if they decide to go out on the town in the US with their civillian clothes - are by this definition some kind of unprotected enemy combatants?
What's the point of having the Geneva convention if only to circumvent it at the first opportunity.
AIK
yes I can, Mussawi was an american citizen, arrested in Chicago and put in a camp for 3 years w/o a trial in violation of the 14th amendment due process rights that are due to every american citizen.
Fool me once...shame on you, fool me twice...won't be fooled again (our president)
The next thing that we know, US software companies are extradicting developers from countries that don't have software patent.
National survival trumps individual rights.
A nation that trumps individual rights has no right to survive.
What?
Simply because warcrimes have happened in the past doesn't make it acceptable to commit them now... We should be trying to learn from our mistakes, not using our mistakes as justification for further errors of judgement.
That's not entirely what's being argued here. It's a matter of legitimacy, structure, and precedent. The argument isn't that everything that was done in the past is fair-game today. You are spot-on to say that would be wrong. However, the government is unequivocally empowered both historically and according to Supreme Court precedent to temporarily suspend the right to due process in times of national crisies.
If this is something that upsets you, then there's always the possibility of amending the constitution to abolish the English Common Law system (which works on precedent--including "past mistakes").
The Japanese detainment was an embarassment to us, and we as a nation have tried to compensate for what we did to them, and formal apologies have been issued.
The Japanese detainment wasn't exactly the same thing as Guantanamo. Those in Guantanamo were typically caught in and around battlezones with an enemy which chooses not openly identify themselves. The people in detainment camps were only tangentially related (solely by ethnicity) to a nation which declared war upon us. You can bet that if there were guerilla warfare taking place on the California coast by Japanese separatists (which is more akin to the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq), history would not have been so harsh on the Japanese detainment camps.
-Grym
This guy is blowing smoke. If the USA thought he was the kind of guy that they put in GTMO, do you really think they would extradite him through the British court system? The fact that the the US Justice Department is pursuing this in British courts is a pretty good indication that this is a Judicial proceeding, not a covert intelligence operation. We extradite people through judical proceedings everyday. I'm not aware of a single case where a judicial extradition has resulted in the prisoner going to GTMO.
If the US & UK goverments had decided this guy was going to GTMO, he would not be in the custody of the police and he would not be in court.
You've been told a fair few already, here are two more:
Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna. Disappeared from the Gambia, where they had just arrived from the UK on business, into the loving care of the CIA, and thence to the gulag in Cuba. Probably sold out to the Americans by MI5.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Asking seriously, how do we find a balance between transparency and security? It is impossible to secure a nation if there is complete transparency. Half of what goes into the business is learning what the bad guys are up to without them knowing that we know. The other half is planning ways to thwart the bad guys without them finding out what we are planning. How would such be possible if government ran in a completely transparent way?
I love my sig.
The founding fathers were wise not to try and enforce these rights on everyone in the world.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone is entitled to these rights, but where do we draw the line and where do we tell the rest of the world to draw the line? Is America imperialistic? You bet. But most of the world wants us to be when it comes to our courts and the 'rights' of their citizens on our soil.
I honestly don't know what the issue is. If I had done what he did, I wouldn't assume to tell them that they couldn't put me where they want. If I had further allowed others to gain access to the information (which it could be argued he did) I could easily be tried for treason, and executed as a spy.
I agree, we should enforce our imperialistic constitutional rights on this potential 'spy' in our midst! ...ah, in the UK's midst!
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
Your argument is based on two key concepts:
...". Any changes of heart by various members of Congress afterward does not change the fact that they authorized these actions.
1)the false premise that the President made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, against the wishes of the US Congress but the 'Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' was passed by both the House and the Senate in 2002.
and
2)that the United States can take no military action without a formal declaration of war. That argument is ridiculous on it's face, as it would require a formal declaration of war any time that NATO or the UN or any of the many countries America has some mutual defense pact with, were in need of military assistance.
No matter how you try to spin it, this was not a case of the President's 'circumvention of Congress', this was a clear cut case of a President following the accepted method to take military action against a perceived threat to the United States. People may not like the result but the fact of the matter is Congress gave him their blessing and as you said, "If it looks like a duck
And from my understanding, the originalists interpretation of the constitution is to not read into it additional powers and protections that are not clearly stated (the right to privacy, 'seperation' of Church and State, etc..). According to the originalist view of the Constitution any rights or powers not directly assigned to or protected by the Federal government by the Constitution are the domain of the individual States, a view I happen to hold.
Either way, I wouldn't see this as a violation of that interpretation as the President did indeed request Congress's approval before taking action, how they chose to give it is left up to them. By adding a stipulation that a formal declaration of war be made every time a military action is taken it is you that is creating a new requirement under the Constitution where none previously existed, in clear opposition of the originalist philosophy.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
A nation that trumps individual rights has no right to survive.
I know we all enjoy such platitudes, but what does that mean? Must we really be held to all of our strictest standards, at risk of our own demise?
Below is an act passed by a Western democracy (I'll leave it to you to figure out which one) in dire times. By the standard implied by your statement, this nation lacked a "right to survive." Is that correct?
"[The government]has power during the continuance of the present war to issue regulations for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of [The government]'s forces and other persons acting in his behalf; and may by such regulations authorise the trial by courts-martial, or in the case of minor offences by courts of summary jurisdiction, and punishment of persons committing offences against the regulations and in particular against any of the provisions of such regulations designed:
* (a) to prevent persons communicating with the enemy or obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardise the success of the operations of any of [The government]'s forces or the forces of [its] allies or to assist the enemy; or
* (b) to secure the safety of [The government]'s forces and ships and the safety of any means of communication and of railways, ports, and harbours; or
* (c) to prevent the spread of false reports or reports likely to cause disaffection to [The government] or to interfere with the success of [The government]'s forces by land or sea or to prejudice [The government]'s relations with foreign powers; or
* (d) to secure the navigation of vessels in accordance with directions given by or under the authority of the Admiralty; or
* (e) otherwise to prevent assistance being given to the enemy or the successful prosecution of the war being endangered.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Admiralty or Army Council:
* (a) to require that there shall be placed at their disposal the whole or any part of the output of any factory or workshop in which arms, ammunition, or warlike stores and equipment, or any articles required for the production thereof, are manufactured;
* (b) to take possession of, and use for the purpose of, [The government]'s naval or military service any such factory or workshop or any plant thereof;"
Source: Wikipedia
-Grym
We could (theoretically; given that random ideas can pop into people's heads in much the same way as genetic mutation occurs, this isn't likely to happen) take out all the terrorists.
Hell, we could have entire days or weeks without violent crime. (See above.)
But as long as there is power to be gained by holding the spectre of terr'ists over the heads of the people, the War on Terror will never be over.
The problem with your idea is that it makes sense.
I think he deserves a fair trial, but also a very harsh punishment (from the lawyers statements it seems he admits to guilt). He should be jailed in some way that he can help secure US government computer systems.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Just to make sure you're not getting a false impression here... Yes, Guantanamo Bay is widely considered an abomination, and I would say it's the number one reason why British people are becoming uneasy about our alliance with the US, but - don't think that's the only, or even the main, reason why Condi got a tough time from the British media. They do that to everyone.
For a long time now British political interviewing has been dominated by Jeremy Paxman. I think he's mellowed somewhat in recent years, but he remains dangerous; his motto has always been 'Why is this lying bastard lying to me?' He's always been a tough interviewer, and occasionally outright hostile.
His finest hour: interviewing Michael Howard in 1997, shortly before the fall of the Tory government.
One legendary question-and-not-answer session later, every reporter on every broadcaster in the country wants to be like him. Everyone gets a tough time now.
Oh, and if you're wondering... no, he didn't threaten to overrule him. He might have said so at the time.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Why are we trying to extradite a British citizen from Britain?
Britain is our ally. Don't we trust them to take care of their own?
This whole thing seems ridiculous. If we had captured him on a battlefield, that would be another story, but a computer hacker? Let the British government handle it.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Which US citizens were being held under the Iraqi Force resolution?
Not every action taken by the Federal government while engaged in a military action are a direct result of that action. The Patriot Act, for example, which I don't want to debate the merits of in this thread, granted the ability for the Feds to 'suspend' (for lack of a better word) certain constitutional rights but had no direct relation to the Iraq war.
If you mean the wire tapping, even the FISA courts have found that they were within the Presidents inherent powers and as such, legal and they had no authority to limit them (google the phrase: "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.")
The Presidential powers to defend the country from threat do not only come into being during a time of war. While a declaration may grant him special authority that he wouldn't otherwise of had, even on those lazy Sundays in those off years when everything is peaceful, he still has certain abilities inherent in his job.
And I'm sure there have been many people detained accidentily, but focusing on single cases while ignoring the bigger picture doesn't help. There have been many recorded instance of people being arrested, prosecuted and found guilty only later to be proven innocent of the crime. Do we then use those instances as a basis to do away with the entire criminal justice system? Of course not. You determine what went wrong, and if possible, put in safeguards to prevent that same thing from happening again.
If people are improperly held, and despite what you seem to be implying, very few if any, detainees at GITMO are American citizens, then the way to fix the problem is NOT to release everyone (many of which are in deed guilty of taking direct action against the US) but to do a better job of filtering out those who are innocent through better intelligence gathering or raising the bar as to what constitutes an offence worthy of detention.
No one wants to see a person wrongly held for a crime or action they didn't commit but the question is, since no system is perfect, under the conditions that are in place, what is an acceptable percentage of error.
For example, if you know one person is an apartment building of 20 people just stole a candy bar from a corner store it would be ludicrous to arrest all 20 and then try and sort them out. The stakes vs the probability of error make the excercise not worth it. But if that same set of circumstances occured but the item was a cannister of VX nerve gas, you wouldn't think twice about grabbing all 20 and then sorting out the innocent people.
So while I believe that the detaining of 'enemy combatant' plays a very important role in the general 'war on terrorism', I also believe than there is definite room for improvement as to how the military determines who is and is not an enemy. For example, I agree that the use of a bounty system, while it may occasionally net a big fish, is probably lowering the standards too far and to continue with my example, akin to saying "we know the cannister is somewhere on Manhatten Island, so round 'em up". The 'prize' may be extremely valueble, but the error rate would be astronomical.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Easy enough to say, a bit more difficult to realize in the real world.
I love my sig.
Would you actually listen to yourself? You compare "A Few Hundred" civilian deaths to something like spilling a can of coke! Do you actually pause for a second and think about the fact that that is "A few hundred" individuals??? PEOPLE!!!! like you and me, wiped off the face of the planet by a bomb dropped from 10000 feet, the fact that such destructive power can be unleashed from so far away perfectly sums up the current American administrations (and anyone who supports thems) values, "Hey, I didnt see them get ripped apart in front of their families in a shower of flying debris, so i'll just call it a statistic, who could get offended by a statistic?" that distance between pulling the trigger and actually seeing the person die is what allows people to "justify" the war, as they have no connection with the war actually killing people, they see numbers like 30'000 Iraqi Civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) (Thats 30'000 people who were living and breathing 30 seconds before a state funded and trained pilot decided to release a bomb costing more than all those people would probably ever earn in their entire working lives combined, if they survived) think about that, think about where you live and if suddenly 30'000 of those people didnt exist anymore, does 30'000 deaths "balance" out the 3000 from 9/11?? i bet it makes you feel good that "Your country is making them pay!" Just remember that an eye for an eye will leave the world blind
I never said I was happy about civilian deaths, but to compare a stray missile to a suicide bomber is wrong. Trust me, if the suicide bombers had the aresenal of the US Military, none of us would be here talking about it!
But, if you to count numbers, fine. We'll use the number you posted of 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Now let's assume these were innocent civilians, killed by US personel, and not suicide bombers (also a civilian), terrorists charging checkpoints or making bombs or whatever. We'll also assume that these deaths were not the result of other means such as suicide bomber or whatever.
Now, compare that 30,000 number to the numbers Unicef reported. Unicef reported 1,000,000 deaths of children... just children, due to Saddam Hussein. Of course, this does not include the numbers of bodies we've found in mass graves (hundreds of thousands of men, women and children).
So, if we take your numbers and Unicef numbers, by my public school math skillz, I figure we saved 970,000 lives. These are people we are talking about. 970,000 people just like you and me. So, yeah! It does make me feel good that my country is doing something about it. Does it make you feel good when a mass grave is discovered filled with the skeletal remains of mothers still holding their toddler age children?
Of course, if you had your way, there would still be children dying from preventable diseases and bullets to the head as opposed to the accidental and rare stray missile.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The *only* reason to fight a war is to defend individual rights. As soon as we have to sacrifice our individual rights, we are no longer fighting the right enemy.
Mark
Good questions. The foreground war started on 9/11 will end when Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Al Zarqawi are killed or captured. These are the most visible leadership figures. Many possible leadership replacements from Al Qaida's second tier have already been killed. It will not be easy for them to reconstitute. One wonders if the US is trying very hard to assassinate them. My guess is they are, but the big three are very good at hiding. That will empty Gitmo pretty well I think and the the troops pulling back. But the background stuggle of the west against Islamic fascism will continue with no end in sight. It is alive and well in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and much of the muslim world. You won't see large occupation forces in these countries but I think you will see constant conflict. The key for the United States is to not let cells take root within its borders. They seem to be pretty well dispersed at this point. Public suspicion is so high that the islamists would have to win non-Arab converts like Jose Padilla to operate freely within the US. The large Christian majority in the US is a deterent. It is still something to guard against. Uprooting cells from Europe and Canada will be more problematic as the populace and governments are more pacifist.
an ill wind that blows no good
Dear Mr.Bush,
I have some bad news for ya.
We locked up the wrong guy and now we face public exposure.
What shall we do ?
1) Lock the guy up for life ?
2) Lock him up and the press too ?
3) bomb the whole world ?
4) hire the guy to become part of the CIA and say to the press we released the guy ? (of course telling him , if he speaks he faces Mr.Gunn).
Regards,
Q
Because the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. These guys were neither uniformed not soldiers of any government.
While this is definitely the correct answer to my provocation, it still doesn't feel right. As I said, the rules are made such that, when everybody follows them, the ones who made them will win.
Not that I'm sympathizing with terrorists, but I guess there's more than one innocent prisoner at Guantanamo Bay... isn't that kafkaesque? "why don't I get a fair trial?" "well, weren't wearing a uniform, were you?"
and the US apologizes repeatedly for it. I have yet to hear Bin Laden apologize for the accidental civilian deaths on 9-11.
Ok, if he apologized, but did it again right after that, would you feel better? And some of the apologies of the US really aren't very plausible. They sacrifice a few dispensable soldiers and pretend that the leaders hadn't known what was going on.
Georg
It's more because the US was afraid was afraid that numerous charges would be pressed against it in that court (a number of them quite possibly made up) and didn't want to bother with it.
It has nothing to do with any kind of extra safeguard, it's mostly about politics.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I seeme to remember reading a paper on someone working there (i.e. not a prisoner) who told of what he had seen and confirmed most (all?) of the prisoner stories.
Does this ring a bell with someone else ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
There's a difference between protecting citizens from criminals and making an example of someone.
Yes, it is correct. A government creates these rules to protect itself, not its subjects. It will protect the public only so far as to meet this goal. If the people must be forced to cooperate, then the government has no rights. I will grant that someone from outside has no right to destroy a government, unless that government's transgressions pass outside its borders. A righteous government would never coerce its people into anything, no matter how deep the trouble it has gotten itself into. If it is a good government, and if the people feel it's worth defending, then that is what will happen. A government must work with the consent of the people, not the other way around. Otherwise, bye bye. Don't care who.
What?
Granted, this was before the Geneva Conventions, but I wonder how it fits into your ideas.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Take a look at this page too: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-050406-f
And let me say 3 more things.
One. If you think everyone in Guantanamo was an armed irregular in afghanistan or Iraq you are a fool. People have been shipped there from lot's of other places, like pakistan, bosnia, etc.
Two. When you capture an enemy soldier it hardly matters if he has a uniform, there are international conventions on how you should treat prisoners, and none of them consider torture acceptable.
Three. One of the things distinguishing a democracy from a dictatorship is the fact that when someone is arrested, his family is allowed to know that he is being detained and on what accusation. It is only dictatorships that make people just disappear.
The problem, though, is that the United States government has managed to garner a fair bit of power from War on Terror resolutions, and they probably won't want to part with it. As long as they can either count on or fake the spectre of terrorism, the War, in their eyes, never has to end, unless we actually get some ethics back into the Hill and the West Wing.
The problem with your idea is that it makes sense.
Uh I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure it was illegal to break into Pentagon computers in 2001 and anybody smart enough to do it was probably smart enough to know it was illegal.
The guys grabbing people and taking them off to secret torture camps (OK rendering, sometimes until death for those who use newspeak for extra spin) have shown they are under little control and have made mistakes (like getting the wrong people or interrogations ending in death) so people are right to worry about falling into the hands of US agencies that are not conventional law enforcement. The FBI are supposed to solve crimes and they are supposed to do it by following due process - get these James Bond wannabees who cut corners out of there and let the professionals handle it. Get a real judge and not a horse judge involved.
All those in the US who think that it is okay to "bend" the rules or change the rules should heed a great American. "Those that sacrifice Freedom for Security, deserve neither Freedom nor Security." - Benjamin Franklin If we keep sacrificing the Freedoms we have for Security, in the end, what are we trying to keep Secure?
And likewise, there's no substantive reason to think he won't.
Sure there is - Gitmo has to be the most expensive prison cell real estate in the world. Its size is limited as well as its scope. If there were 2000 empty cells and no waiting line he might have something to worry about. But none of those conditions apply so I'd bet good money he'll be placed elsewhere.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I just don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water which seems to be what so many are demanding.
As for the VX example, I doubt if you would find too many security experts, or law enforcement personnel who would agree with your decision to hesitate. When the table is so slanted in the favor of the 'greater good' as in the scenario I gave (inconveniencing 19 innocent people to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands), there can be no holding back. In instances like these hesitation kills. It may not be comfortable, and of those 19 people I'm sure some would agree with you and demand compensation, but I would guess that in the majority of cases, they would see the police actions as reasonable, barring the use of excessive force of course.
And to clear up the FISA statement, here is the preceding text which I originally left out:
It doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. Almost every President that you can think of in modern times have used this power, and unlike the current administration, some went much further than simply monitoring foreign communications (Clinton for example authorized the monitoring and searching of persons and places completely contained within the United States). In pretty much every case it was determined that if the purpose of the searches or surveillance in question was for the collection of foreign intelligence (in Clintons case catching a Russian agent) then the President was within his rights.
I do disagree with a later move, also by Clinton, to expand this power to include simple criminal cases but even though he made the argument that that was within his authority, I don't know if it was ever tested.
Powerline has a good write-up on the legal standing of the warrantless wire taps. And honestly, this was the first detailed legal response I could find with Google; I did not intentionally pick a conservative web site.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Any honest and true American wouldn't care at all how long that pile of shit spends in jail before he is executed
Which kind of honest and true American is against the rule of law and habeus corpus? Is it one which has studied any of the texts our founding fathers were inspired by?
It's OK to route for a fair and speedy trial *and* execution, these things aren't exclusive.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I didn't think they extradited for hacking. Yeah, privacy and all is great, but our government should not be private, imagine if every government could have no secrets from each other, I wonder what would happen. Anyway, if he gets extradited for it, the US government will go way overboard with sentences and keep him away from attorneys for years. I hope he wins his case.
> most likely access to the sports facilities.
Most likely angels are going to come flying out of my butt.
The current administration wants to define torture as only things that leave a permanent mark. Everyone knows there are ways to torture people that don't leave a permanent mark. I believe Bush explicitly allows the use of presure points, sleep deprevation, isolation and near drowning.
US forces raid a house in Afghanistan based on a tipoff that the house contains Al Qaeda members. People inside the house shoot back, killing a US soldier. US forces kill 2 and manage to capture 3 individuals: 2 Pakistanis and a Saudi. A quick search of the house finds that is loaded with guns and grenades. US forces have no idea who in the house was actually doing the shooting. US forces have no evidence that they are members of Al Qaeda other than the tipoff from locals (this would be hearsay testimony and is NOT admissable in a US civillian court). The region is dangerous, and the US forces leave with the prisoners quickly so that more US forces are not killed by snipers.
(1) If the prisoners were uniformed soldiers of an army, it is uncontested that the US could automatically hold them for the duration of the conflict without a trial.
(2) If the US proceeded with a criminal prosectuion in civilian courts, there is no way the three individuals would convicted. There is a lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The three dudes will simply claim that the other two people that the US killed were the only ones doing the shooting.
So what do you do? Do you let them go? (sounds pretty insane to me) Do you hold a military tribunal with a different standard of evidence than a civillian court?
The basic problem is that you are trying to apply civilian law to a warzone and to soldiers fighting in a war. This does not work.
Is it wise to hand over people to countries who think that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to them, where you can be thrown in jail without a trail for however long they see fit, where you might get tortured, ...
...
I mean my God, America pretends to be the humain country in the conflict with Irak, yet they had lawyers throw out the Geneva Convention on the basis of "Hey if they don't stick to it, why should we?"
You shouldn't sent people there, for no reason whatsoever
Are you kidding? Other countries believe that the US will refuse due process, most likely torture, and definately imprison indefinitely any 'terrorists' that they send. That's like a politician's wet dream - they get to give their problems to the US and score browie points at the same time.
The fact of the matter is that a country will give the US any of it's citizens they want without complaint. Usually the US wants someone that the country doesn't want to defend, so the US is at worst taking a person the country's government doesn't care about, at best they are taking someone that the country wants to get rid of. If they are lucky, they might even get intelligence back from the US from any torture sessions.
For a country, this is a really cheap way to get on the US's good side. The fact that it is morally repugnant and very much illegal under most domestic and international law is hardly likely to stop any politician from supporting it, now that they know they can get away with it.
Articles 4 and 5 of Convention IV (Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War):
Art. 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 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
Art. 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.
See here for a list of signatories to the Geneva conventions. You'll note that Afghanistan signed in 1956, although I'll confess I'm not 100% sure if that was still relevant at the time
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Prisoners of war are always treated differently than regular criminals. Soldiers aren't generally charged with anything. Their release is arranged after the enemy government surrenders or dissolves.
You can't have it both ways. If they are POWs they should be handled according to the Geneva Convention. If they are not POWs they deserve a fair trial so that they have the chance to establish their innocence.
Anything else is an evil and utterly Unamerican abuse of power and that is how things stand right now.
What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?
So you admit that "sending the right message" to Islamists doesn't do a damn thing to help. That's all I was trying to say.
The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced. Neither this country nor its allies are in any appreciable danger of being invaded or taken over. The ongoing occupation of Iraq doesn't come close to justifying wartime restrictions.
If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights.
Now you're saying that the state has the right to curtail our rights based on nothing but the *possibility* of danger sometime in the future. Name one moment in the history of our country when there was no possibility of danger.
What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair?
What about the Jews? They posed a perceived threat the the security of the Third Reich. Were the Nazis justified in detaining them? Obviously not, so there needs to be some way to distinguish real threats from imaginary threats. Hence my point about putting too much faith in the executive branch to decide these things for us.
There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo?
It's possible that Bush wasn't being entirely honest. Or maybe he just hasn't found a way to enact his plan yet. Why do you want me to defend Bush? I don't even agree with most of the things he says. Try asking him why uses divisive "with us or against us" rhetoric.
Jose isn't in Gitmo. My post was if this fellow is worried about Gitmo, he can avoid it for sure.
I don't agree with Padilla being held for years without trial or being charged, and I don't agree the government should be allowed to hold other people for years without trial just because they aren't on US soil.
What exactly are we fighting for? Our government makes people disappear, and even tortures people (sometimes to death). We're no kind of model of freedom anymore.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You mean Moussouai? The guy who is currently participating in a highly public trial? Who was put into pretrial confinement with access(which he refused) to several lawyers, but not to the press or anyone not identified as counsel?
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
A Pakistani, or Afgan in Afghanistan with a Kalishnikov != An Iraqi, Syrian, Chinese, in Afghanistan with a Kalishnikov. Thats why most of the Afghans and Pakistanis captured in Afghanistan weren't sent to Gitmo, and those that were sent by mistake have been released.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I agree, but I was trying to examine the limits of mrchaotica's feelings about what constitutes an enemy combatant.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Fox is the most mainstream having the most viewers, and the most biased being owned by hard right tycoon Rubert Murdoch.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Compared to any other western democracy the U.S. has no left wing we have right and far right. For example ALL the MSM tee vee news from Fox to CBS/CNN/NYT (the so called left) spread the lies of the neo-cons in the run up to the war against Iraq. All the MSM conspired to destroy Howard Dean who was a moderate Dem who just happened to be a little anti-war. Stop listening to Rush and look at reality, the only left in the U.S. is the streets protesting, the left has NO representation in the MSM, or through politicians. As a consequence we have the longest working hours and fewest labor rights of any western democracy, a shitty public transit system, no plan for global warming or peak oil, and 40 million Americans with no health insurance whatsoever. Of course that's all OK as long as you get to drive an Expedition that gets 12 mpgs, right asshole?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
So you admit that "sending the right message" to Islamists doesn't do a damn thing to help.
No, not at all. There's a difference between embracing peace and not fighting. One needn't subscribe to a doctrine of non-violence to think twice before throwing the first punch. It's an issue of respect versus good feelings. Islamic fascists probably wouldn't have good feelings about the United States even if we conceded to all of their outlandish demands. However, they will respect us (or at least respect the consequences of their acts against us), provided we send them the right message.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced. Neither this country nor its allies are in any appreciable danger of being invaded or taken over. The ongoing occupation of Iraq doesn't come close to justifying wartime restrictions.
And I'm glad you brought that up. I'm not convinced either. My point (at the detriment to my karma) is that the government can legitimately infringe upon individual rights, not necessarily that it currently should.
It almost seems like the Bush administration has stumbled upon a huge loophole in our system. The executive branch is traditionally given (and should be given) near-absolute power in times of dire need, but who decides when that is? By selectively picking the right reports to declassify, pressuring intelligence analysts to toe-the-line, and baiting people like Osama Bin Laden or Iran's Amenjad to, themselves, make outlandish claims, one can create an atmosphere of dire need that, in reality, is either non-existent or less of a threat than is perceived.
Notice how the Bush administration utilizes its wartime powers or, rather, doesn't use its powers. You won't ever see a call for conscription ("The draft"). You won't ever see a call for rationing or a comprehensive alternative energy plan. Similarly, you won't see a call for nationalization of ANY private assets (like Defense contractors or... ahem... Oil companies). Wouldn't all of these things conceivably help further the War on Terrorism? The administration's big advice to Americans after the September 11th attacks was "Keep on consuming."--or, in essence, nothing at all. I believe this trick only works because complacency of both the media and the average public, which, unfortunately, are at a seemingly all time high.
That being said, I do believe that there is truth to the claims that there is a threat. The September 11th attacks were real and were perpetrated by a new type of menace (a nation-less army of saboteurs seeking rewards in the afterlife) to America's position in the world, though not our very existence. We need to fight this enemy in the manner that it requires, which means foregoing political correctness and playing nice.
-Grym
It seems you are arguing effectively that all punishments for breaking the law should be infinitely harsh because the harsher they are, the more terrified people will be of breaking them and therefore the less likely they are to commit a crime. There are a couple of problems with that however.
One is that it is not at all convincing that harsher punishments will deter people. Generally people commit crimes when they think they are not going to be caught. After all in some US states the minimum sentence for possession of marijuana is 20 years, which is sufficiently harsh to scare most people, but they do it anyway when they think there is no real chance of getting caught. Increasing this to 60 years or death would probably not change much, as long as it does not alter a person's subjective probability of getting caught.
A second problem is that if you give all crimes extremely harsh punishments there will be nothing to stop someone who has committed one from committing another. The classic example of this is rape and murder. If you make the punishment for rape as bad as the punishment for murder, or even sufficiently bad that it seems nothing can be worse, then a rapist has no incentive not to murder their victim. By using a graduated punishment scheme, effective deterrent may be possible. But it is not enough that it is graduated; punishments must also not be so severe that the graduation is irrelevant--if, for example, the punishment for rape was having your eyes gouged out, then making the punishment for murder having your legs cut off may create no meaningful difference.
A third problem is that people often accidentally break the law, and some people are accidentally convicted. Using massive punishments against these people is more likely to create a sense of injustice than using proportional punishments. If you don't care about these people, then perhaps there's no problem--but even if you don't care about them, I think it would have deleterious social effects like a sense of constant unease if, for example, going 1 mile over the speed limit were to result in punishment by having your fingernails ripped out.
A fourth problem is that the view of punishment as a deterrent to crime is too limited; punishment has other purposes as well. One purpose is the effects it has on the person who committed the crime and specifically their future behaviour. While it may be the case that a sufficiently terrible punishment will traumatise a person enough to scare them away from ever committing a crime again, it is also most probably the case that beyond a certain level of harshness, punishment results in perverse effects like the creation of psychopaths. Or in the more common case, people who are given very long prison sentences become psychologically dependent on the prison environment so re-offend in order to be re-convicted.
A fifth problem has to do with another role of punishment: it helps to make explicit a society's norms about the weight of certain crimes. This is not just within the spectrum of law, but forms a continuum with social sanctions imposed outside of law. For example spitting profusely in public is not illegal in most places, but people don't do it partly because they know others would be bothered by it and would react adversely to it; it can be made illegal and moved into the realm of law with a minor, symbolic punishment to reinforce the social sanction. But if punishments were all extreme because the sole deterrend was taken to be fear of the nature of the punishment, rather than also the social significance of being labelled a criminal, then less acts could be moved into the realm of law because people would not want them to be sanctioned with such massive punishments. In other words, the system becomes much less fine-grained.
I think these are all arguments for punishment proportional to crime. I think you will find people in Singapore subscribe to the same kinds of arguments, although they probably feel caning is within the realm of reasonable punishments. It is overly simplistic to see punishment as being purely about deterrent through threat of the nature of the punishment, and it is overly simplistic to see humans as being purely motivated by fear of physical harm.
Since the US government is representing in open court that he's not going to go to Guantanamo (read the article), what he's doing is asserting that the US government is lying
And you have some grounds for people to disbelieve his assertion?
Not many people outside the US electorate would believe much that comes out of the public mouth of the US government. Well done, Dubya, for doing such good to your country's international profile.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"