Slashdot Mirror
Diffing Guantanamo Bay SOP Manuals
James Hardine writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Wikileaks has released another manual for Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay together with the US military's rendition operations manual. This release follows from the Wikileaks release of the 2003 SOP Manual as discussed on Slashdot last month. Wikileaks compares the two manuals (2003, 2004) and reveals damning changes in official US detainee policy in exquisite detail. Who knew that diff could be such a powerful political weapon?"
How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html
From Enemy Combatants on a site called the "Council on Foreign Relations" that has the tagline "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (and not knowing anything about the CFR, that sounds a bit like a "fair and balanced" view of things, if you get my meaning).
I quote:
An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
Who told you that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-Citizens? Let's look at the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Its pretty damned clear to me that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Not "no citizen," but "no person". Due process applies to anyone in the jurisdiction of the US, regardless of citizenship or residence (or in fact their physical location, but that's another argument). Note that "in actual service" phrase if you think you can use the military exemption clause as cover here - that only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen in time of war or public danger.
Before spouting off, RTF Constitution!
From the 9/11 hearings when Senator Gorton interviewed Richard Clarke, the Clinton Administration's Terror Czar and head of counter-terrorism.
FORMER SEN. SLADE GORTON: Assuming that the recommendations that you made in... on January 25 of 2001 based on blue sky, including aid to the northern alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two-and-a-half years without any action, assuming that there had been more predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, the year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
RICHARD CLARKE: No.
Unequivocal. The person in charge of counter-terrorism up to the very date that the Bush administration started CONFIRMED that 9/11 was already irreversibly in motion. The opportunity to stop it had already passed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!