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?"

Comments

Hmph

[moogied]

Section D.

1. Policies in regard to treatment of prisoner's shoes.

A. Shit in them.

Re:Hmph

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the summary's link to the rendition ops manual:

How quaint a result:

Detainee operations in a Joint Environment
There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

congrats to wikileak

[Adult film producer]

for weaking america and making all of more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, hope you are proud of the work you are doing.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know they let fundamentalist Republicans on slashdot.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[iminplaya]

...hope you are proud of the work you are doing.

Me too. I'm very proud of people who actively try to make the world a better place by exposing the atrocities committed by these pigs. I say, Right on! And feel free to log in the next time you post, Mr. President. You have nothing to fear from us.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax, Dick. You, Bush and the rest of the cabinet are still allowed to have circle jerks on the constitution while watching torture porn.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be too angry at them. They only do it because they hate freedom.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[apparently]

for weaking america and making all of more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, hope you are proud of the work you are doing.

I wonder if they're as proud as Bush was for ignoring memos titled Bin Laden determined to attack in US, not taking heed (and improving airline security), and successfully making us vulnerable to an attack.
Cause that's totally comparable to someone releasing the SOP manuals of a prison.
You see, friend, it's people like you who "weaken" and make America "more vulnerable to terrorist attacks". Instead of targeting your anger toward an administration that has let its incompetence actually harm American interests, you'd rather cry about some hypothetical weakening.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

My first trip through your post had me misread "take heed" as "take head". Somehow, that still reads better and sheds more light on your average American. Blowjobs are serious business, but lying, stealing, and torture are just fine.

A happy Torture Tuesday and a good Waterboard Wednesday to you too.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[WindBourne]

Exactly how did this weaken America? America is suppose to be the land of the free and a place where democracy rules. Gitmo is a prison (from what I understand, it is the nicest of all of our external prisons) where we are holding suspects. This prison is the one that the feds MEANT to show the press. So why should the press and our citizens not see what is the absolute nicest that we will be.

What should worry ppl is what is NOT being seen. In those dark rooms, is where we should be casting a light.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

Since our intelligence resources are still struggling to infiltrate al-qaida and similar groups perhaps you can give some constructive advice on what exactly Bush should have done in the 5 months between that vague memo and the 9/11 attack?

Also, would you care to comment on Clinton's limp-wristed response to FOUR attacks by al-qaida while he was president?

Re:congrats to wikileak

[The Rizz]

Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden?

After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is any justice in this world, the terrorists will blow the heads off your family, and then you can spend the rest of your life eating mournful crow.

My friend, you are a sap and a sucker. I pity your cluelessness.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[LynnwoodRooster]

I see this type of reasoning all the time. Let's just set the record straight:

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.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

That came after the third (and largest) attack, and was largely ineffective, which is proven by the fact that it didn't slow down al-qaeda at all. Please don't forget that missile volley also involved an innocent pharmaceuticals plant in the Sudan.

The "wag the dog" stuff was silly, but not entirely unjustified. Remember that prior to this Clinton's response was ALWAYS "throw more lawyers at the problem." Conveniently after his impeachment was over he went right back to relying on lawyers.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Hal_Porter]

Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden?

After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job. As a non American, I think it's appalling that both the Republicans and the Democrats make these sorts of comments about foreign policy when they are out of office.

In the UK we have a tradition of bipartisanship over this sort of stuff - it's something which the opposition is briefed over and is normally exempt from political sniping, unlike domestic issues which are fair game. Like most UK stuff it's not official - the two halves of the establishment essentially have an agreement not to argue in public about things that seriously threaten them. It works pretty well in practice though - in WWII when the UK was in dire danger of invasion they agreed form a coalition government, suspend elections, lock up Nazi sympathizers, censor the press and have a planned economy. Once the war was won all this was reversed and elections were held, which Churchill lost. Arguably in the London bombings there was at least some hint of this - the shoot to kill policy by the police was bipartisan and when it killed the wrong person and was thus clearly untenable the decision to stop it was also bipartisan. But counter terrorism policy is still something which is handled by a sort of hypervisor composed of Labour and the Conservative front benches and the spooks rather than by the normal adversarial system where they each compete and criticise each other openly.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[bendodge]

There is quite a bit of evidence that Clinton was offered bin Laden on a platter several times and turn it down.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[apparently]

Since our intelligence resources are still struggling to infiltrate al-qaida and similar groups perhaps you can give some constructive advice on what exactly Bush should have done in the 5 months between that vague memo and the 9/11 attack? Also, would you care to comment on Clinton's limp-wristed response to FOUR attacks by al-qaida while he was president?

What a nice re-writing of history in which you ignore that not only did Clinton respond to those attacks, but he was met by opposition from a Republican-controlled congress the entire time.
Even if your claim had a hint of truth, wasn't it the Bush administration's duty to correct for Clinton's alleged errors in judgment? You state yourself that Al-qaeda was known to be a threat for years, yet Bush still didn't acknowledge their threat until the towers fell.
What could have been done in 5 months? How about an analysis of weaknesses in airline security? How about hardened cockpits? How about the use of air marshalls? How about anything?

You should try reading. I assure you it's more fun than purchasing a patriotic bumper sticker!

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

what, and you couldn't even provide a link to some ultra-conservatisve consipracy theory crap? Usually you guys at least pretend to back up your claims.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Irishman, I find your holding up British behaviour as admirable somewhat amusing. Here's a hint: WWII was about which fascist asshole bad guys would get to rule most of the world, not good vs. bad. Britain, the USA and most of Europe have been corporatist since the end of the war. And corporatism is just a polite name for fascism. Only difference is the yanks are in charge, not the krauts.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[dave562]

You have to take all of those hearings with a grain of salt. Even the chairman of the committee has gone on the record to say that they didn't get the whole story and that they had problems getting statements from key witnesses. The 9/11 Commission was put together to lend legitimacy to a pre-formed conclusion. Any evidence that failed to fit into the predetermined paragidm was supressed and left out of the "official" record.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Leftist Troll]

If there is any justice in this world, the terrorists will blow the heads off your family

Sounds like you just made a terrorist threat to me. Enjoy your stay at Gitmo.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[feed_me_cereal]

For the record, you're calling a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in US" vague? It seems rather to the point to me. What did you expect, a detailed plan of 9/11?

Also, apart from any analysis on your "limp-wristed" claim, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Last time I checked, Republicans didn't regard Clinton as a standard on which to judge other presidents, but yet they do? If you're going to defend Bush, you should pick someone you don't think was a terrible president (I'm assuming this, but it seems to be a fair assumption) to compare him to. Anyway, congrats on the first BBBBBBUT CLINTON! post of the thread (that I've bothered to read, anyway). There's a reason this has been meme-ified. It's because it's a really bad argument...

I'm not necesarily a big fan of Clinton's policies, but given the congress he was dealing with, hell-bent on destroying his presidency, I think he did a fair job running the country. However, were I to defend him, I would certainly not talk about Bush unless someone else was unfairly comparing him to Bush. Any critisism or praise I've had for Bush (yes, IMHO, he has had a few moments :) has been independant of Clinton, though I have commented in the past about what I felt were unfair comparisons to Nixon, especially in regard to foreign relations.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[LynnwoodRooster]

I see. So Richard Clarke, one of the most vocal critics of the Bush Administration, and the Clinton Administration's own terror czar, essentially blamed HIMSELF and the Administration he served because it's all a big conspiracy...

How do you keep aluminum from chafing around the ears?

Re:congrats to wikileak

[dave562]

Where'd you draw your conclusion from? All that I said is that the 9/11 Commission Report was flawed. Because of that, trying to use it for any sort of backing to any statement you make is going to put you on a weak footing.

If you seriously think that there is any real difference between the powers at the top of the political pyramid in this country you're even more dellusional than you imply that I am. Do these guys look like they really hold any anamosity toward to each other? http://instapunk.com/images/clinton_bush.jpg

Re:congrats to wikileak

[baldass_newbie]

In the US there used to be a tradition whereby ex-Presidents did not criticize current Presidents. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have thrown this out the window, repeatedly criticizing President Bush.
I'm not saying Bush is above criticism, but the era of 'working together' on foreign policy is over. Even Harry Reid is ignoring the evidence of the current surge in Iraq actually working and instead saying it's a failure because it doesn't meet his expectations, whatever those are in his capacity as a representative of Nevada.
Sadly, since they tried to tag Viet Nam as "Nixon's War" (despite Dick not getting involved until it had been going on for almost 6 years) foreign policy has been extremely volatile in the US.
I was hoping that when the Baby Boomers died we would have a return to common sense.
Current political commentary on /. makes that seem unlikely.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Boomer_Zz]

There's 8 other memos that say the same thing over the last few years.

There's 8 more that say the same thing about other people.

At least you have a solution, to improve airline security.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't both mourn the death of 'working together' and solely blame democrats for it. It's sadly ironic.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[DamnStupidElf]

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.

Isn't having people take their shoes off in airports supposed to stop future terrorist attacks?

If so, then what you quoted is a bold faced lie. They could have just started forcing people to take their shoes off at the airport checkpoints and taking their knives away, and 9/11 would have been prevented.

If not, then this entire anti-terrorism thing is just a front for more government control with *absolutely no benefit* to normal people.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Oktober Sunset]

Oh look a whining republican Irishman. With that pathetic moral relativism and brain dead anti British sentiment, it's not surprising the IRA and their whining republican supporters were on the side of the Nazis during WW2.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Lemmy Caution]

Guantanamo's detainees are not who you think they are. Only 5% of them were picked up "on the battlefield" by US forces. 55% are not even accused of engaging in hostile acts against the US, and many of the rest have been picked up after being identified by 3rd parties responding to a bounty program, or have been identified as having roles such as "cooks assistant."

Guantanamo is an utter travesty, a testament to a nearly sociopathic streak in US foreign policy.

Overview here. Detailed study here.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[GaryPatterson]

Surely exposing bad behaviour for correction can only strengthen a nation?

And precisely how does this make your country more susceptible to terrorist attacks?

Re:congrats to wikileak

[el americano]

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

Re:congrats to wikileak

[toadlife]

Benjamin Franklin warned us about pussys like you.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[toddestan]

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.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and now you can make the argument that doing nothing may have been the best thing, if you consider any action at the time to be a waste of time and money.

However, the fact still stands that the Bush Administration was warned, and chose to do nothing at all about it.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[sheph]

Do you really believe that? AFAIK the 9/11 commission was made up of a bipartisan group of people, and they were pretty serious about getting to the bottom things. Reading the reports I didn't get the impression it was a whitewash job at all. It seem like there are a lot of conspiracy theories that get thrown about because the truth is far less interesting. I'm pretty sure I've heard everything -- from "America caused 9/11" (as if) to "We're going to war for oil, and we don't care about the Iraqi people at all" (yeah, that's why gas is going to hit $4 + / gal by Christmas because of that great surplus of Iraqi oil that we've got). Please??? It's a bunch of non-sense plain and simple. The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here. I think all of this alarmism over Iraq, Gitmo, etc. just detracts from the real issues that we should be looking at. And before you get all partisan and call this a problem created by republicans please remember that plenty of democrats are on board to remove our freedoms in the name of safety as well, and they're all pandering to the same big businesses as the republicans. This problem transcends political boundary lines.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

Well what was the government supposed to do before 9/11 that would have been acceptable to the people who now bleat about the government violating their rights after 9/11 as it attempts to secure airports and travel to prevent further attacks?

Do you think these people would have accepted increased screening before 9/11? Pat downs, removing their shoes and having them X-rayed. Even if they'd been told the measures were being taken because there was an impending attack? They'd be screaming foul and complaining about their rights being violated.

I know these people wouldn't have accepted such measures before 9/11. Just as I know that even if such measures had been in place before 9/11 that as soon as 9/11 happened these same people would be complaining that the government hadn't been doing enough (never mind that they'd have been complaining about the intrusiveness and non-necessity of the security beforehand.) I also know that some of these people would be claiming with certainty that the government had allowed the attacks to occur because "How else could it have happened with all the security?"

The government is in a non-win situation as regards pleasing some people. According to these people who can never be satisfied the government either aren't doing enough to protect the country, or they're doing too much and making the country into a police state.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[dave562]

I've had this conversation with so many people at this point that I can't even begin to rehash it again here for the umpteenth time. Here is a link to a bunch of people with a lot more prestige than I have who are questioning the validity of the 911 Commission Report. http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

The erosion of our freedom concerns me greatly, and I think that is where we really need to put our focus, not so much what we're doing abroad, but what we're doing here.

If the erosion of your freedoms really concerns you then you should be concerned about the fact that the Commission charged with investigating what happened wasn't given the full freedom to investigate it. You should care that more money was spent investigating why the Challenger blew up, or investigating Clinton's blow job than was spent investigating 9/11/01. Our government has been into messy, black ops stuff for a LONG time... from over throwing popularly elected governments and causing coups (Iran), to supporting oppressive military dictators (Pakistan, Iraq under Saddam), to all sorts of nastiness with drugs (Iran Contra, CIA ops). I'm not saying that the government planned and executed 9/11... that's crazy talk. The government has been covering up any sort of investigation into what really took place though. There has been so much crazy shit that our government has been involved with over the last fifty years that is finally coming home to roost that they can't let it get out. bin Laden was a CIA asset. Saddam was an allie of the United States. The fact of the matter is that our government has made some REALLY BAD foreign policy decisions that have alienated and pissed off a huge portion of the population of the world. At this point in the game the government needs to keep up the facade that they can "protect" us from evil terrorists while concealing the fact that the "evil terrorists" want to attack us because of what the government has been doing since before I was even born.

It baffles me that you can say that you care about the erosion of our freedom and liberty here at home, yet at the same time call me into question for questioning what has taken place since 9/11. Everything that is going on with the erosion of our freedoms is BASED ON 9/11. 9/11 is used as the justification for all of the nonsense that is taking place with the PATRIOT Act, suspension of habeus corpus, wiretaps and everything else.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[toddestan]

Well what was the government supposed to do before 9/11 that would have been acceptable to the people who now bleat about the government violating their rights after 9/11 as it attempts to secure airports and travel to prevent further attacks?

Well, you could use your reading comprehension skills and go back and read what this discussion was about, which was what Richard Clarke recommended back in early 2001, things like going into Afganistan and dismantling Al Queda. It had nothing at all to do with security theatre which you brought up. Of course, you can't make everyone happy and I would expect that people would complain about that too, similar to how people complained when Bill Clinton did something similar, but whatever.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[WindBourne]

Well, as somebody who grew up partially in the military, and has done DOD/NSA work in several projects, I can say that I have contributed to that freedom. In fact, one of the projects, we expected to be used as weaponry (sold as defense, but it really only could be used by us as a weapon). And unless this is a dictatorship, then the idea of the Military is to support the freedoms and liberties that we have.As it is, you speak of Honor, Code, and Loyalty without realizing that exactly WHERE that is meant to apply to, and the importance of these.

It would appear that you are far too young, or have spent far too long as a grunt. As an officer, even a non-com, you would realize exactly what you are defending rather than writing an insipid response.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Harlequin]

Uhhhh... whoosh. That was the sound of this quote going over your head. It's from A Few Good Men when they've got Jack on the stand near the end.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh really? Crap. Never saw the movie.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[tiqui]

Which "limp-wristed" responses are you referring to? The ones where the Republican congress and conservative media shouted "Wag the Dog!" over and over to force him to stop attempting to kill Bin Laden? After all, shooting rockets into Afghanistan to try blow up known terrorist training camps had nothing to do with Clinton trying to protect America - it was all about distracting people from his blow job.

The incident was proof that Clinton getting "serviced" in the oval office was indeed a bad thing which interfered with his job performance. Do not blame Clinton's failure on anybody but him. Politics is a contact sport. In contact sports you must expect the opposing team to push back. What quarterback whines that he could not complete a pass because his opponents got in the way? What boxer whines that his opponent punched back? A real pro would have either not had the fling, or would have had the fling but been competent at keeping it secret, or would have had the fling and still managed to do the job without regard to any political blow-back. If Clinton was not capable of messing with the help and still doing his job (doing the country's business even while political opponents make life tough) then he should have left the intern alone. To say that Bill Clinton was not capable of continuing the Bin Laden chase because his political opponents were howling is to say that he was far less determined or capable than Bush (who has run two full-blown wars for years while his political opponents yelled and screamed). Simply put, Bill Clinton was no Jack Kennedy

Re:congrats to wikileak

[amRadioHed]

In the US there used to be a tradition whereby ex-Presidents did not criticize current Presidents. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have thrown this out the window, repeatedly criticizing President Bush. In the US there also used to be a tradition of Presidents not destroying everything good about America. The only fault I can find with Clinton and Carter's criticism of Bush is that it took far to long.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[sumdumass]

He didn't blame the democrats. He blames Clinton and Carter. You put the connection there not him.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[sjames]

n the US there used to be a tradition whereby ex-Presidents did not criticize current Presidents. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have thrown this out the window, repeatedly criticizing President Bush.

Carter demonstrated restraint through Regan, Bush the first, and Clinton. Bush the second's behaviour has been so outrageous and the damege he's done to the U.S. so grievous that he HAD to speak out.

Re:congrats to wikileak

[iminplaya]

I'm starting a new site called wikifreak. You have the honor of being the first member.

You may already be a wiener

The Rules

[owlnation]

The first rule of Guantanamo is, there are no rules.

The second rule of Guantanamo is, there are no rules.

The third rule of Guantanamo is, always obey the rules.

Re:The Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the first rule of Guantanomo is you do not talk about Guantanomo.

Re:The Rules

[Opportunist]

Nononono.

1. These are the rules of Gitmo.
2. Nobody can or will find out whether they're upheld.
3. Draw conclusions.

Re:The Rules

[Obsi]

Sounds like a certain board on 4chan. Is Moot the commander of JTF GTMO?

Re:The Rules

[ImpShial]

1. These are the rules of Gitmo.
2. Nobody can or will find out whether they're upheld.
3. Draw conclusions.
4. ...
5. Profit!

There. Fixed it for you.

Diff is powerful

[bytesex]

In my last job, I'd pull word docs through antiword and then diff them; usually contracts for salespeople who got these fuckers from other parties and wanted to make sure none of the language had changed. Very quick and powerful indeed.

Re:Diff is powerful

[A beautiful mind]

I'm not sure if someone is already doing this with laws, but I think it would be a good thing to hilight the changes.

Re:Diff is powerful

[AKAImBatman]

Many laws are passed as patches to existing laws. So if you check the text of the resolution, it will say stuff like, "Section(1)Paragraph(7) change word 'shall' to 'must'". In my (admittedly limited) experience, you only see the full law in the resolution if it's completely new.

Re:Diff is powerful

[djasbestos]

I've seen some laws notated with strikethrough on amended or stricken provisions, but not in the bills that modify them. It'd be nice if there were a uniform way of doing this...part of the reason the newer, sneakier laws (Patriot Act?) are so damn huge is because they spend half a page telling you what comma they are changing and what obfuscated subclause is being added, so that as a whole, one would have little idea what the legislation is doing exactly (like you said).

Although I don't see Congress utilizing a differential to improve quality of service anytime soon.

Re:Diff is powerful

[JamesP]

That's it!!

We need a syntax highlighting script for VIM/Emacs for SOP manual diffs.

Re:Diff is powerful

[sqrt(2)]

That's exactly right. It even happens with our constitution. Amendment 18 enacted prohibition, and over a decade later the 21st amendment nullified the 18th; but they're both still there.

Re:Diff is powerful

[passthecrackpipe]

I do that for one of my clients. We diff laws, regulations, and standards, insert comments on changes (reasons for the change, etc.) and let users add their own comments. We also provide timelines for changes, and correlate change over time for different documents. We present in pretty markup, in a variety of ways. Really powerful stuff, and my clients' clients love it.

Re:Diff is powerful

[Lars T.]

I'm not sure if someone is already doing this with laws, but I think it would be a good thing to hilight the changes. I sure hope they use a better diff than Wikipedia.

Re:Diff is powerful

[Metaphorically]

Sunlight Foundation funds a lot of projects with goals of transparency. Their big thing right now is apparently earmarks but look at the projects they give grants to and you might find what you want.

Re:Diff is powerful

[g-san]

Comment 16645:
Volume 3, Article 18, Chapter 34, Subchapter N, Section 12b, Paragraph 13, subparagraph n, subsection 19 entry d reads: ...that an Herbivore is used to collect...

should read: ...that Herbivore is used to collect...

On another less funny note, think about a system where laws are constantly added to the books, but rarely repealed/struck down. Take that limit at infinity, or even in 25 years.

Re:Diff is powerful

[djasbestos]

It makes a do-nothing congress much more desirable.

Re:Diff is powerful

[caluml]

Create a US (or any other) Law CVS server. Ask politicians to create diffs against old laws, and submit them to Linus.

Re:Diff is powerful

[shadowbearer]

  Too much cruft. Time to rewrite from scratch. Obviously this won't happen if it's assigned to a committee... ;)

SB

Re:Diff is powerful

[Arancaytar]

The "blame" feature would certainly revolutionize political punditry.

Damning changes?

[CRCulver]

Except for the fact that soldiers no longer have to carry a human rights card, what are these damning changes? I see little to protest in the diff.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that soldiers no longer have to carry a human rights card, what are these damning changes? I see little to protest in the diff. Then you missed change (t) in the line 298 section: Guards may no longer carry iPods. OH NOES! Think of the guards!

Re:Damning changes?

[grassy_knoll]

One thing that caught my eye is that "MP" was replaced with "Guards".

Could be nothing; they could be using other military personnel who aren't MPs as a form of staff augmentation ( i.e. Navy MAAs, USAF security police, et. al. ). Could be contractors, FBI agents ( kinda doubt it, but hey, why not? ).. just people without the MP MOS.

Not sure if it qualifies as "damning", but did seem interesting.

Re:Damning changes?

[lexarius]

Blackwater?

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war. If they're guarded by guards, then who can really say what they are?

We can't tolerate any suggestion that they might be prisoners. They're detainees. We barely acknowledge that they're human beings.

That's SOP in the Bush administrations' "War on Terra".

Re:Damning changes?

[Opportunist]

Maybe they're outsourcing security to the inmates who've been there before in exchange for privileges.

Hey, who said they didn't learn from history?

(apologies to Godwin)

Re:Damning changes?

[CarpetShark]

Except for the fact that soldiers no longer have to carry a human rights card, what are these damning changes? I see little to protest in the diff.

Umm... I think that's pretty damning, in and of itself.

Re:Damning changes?

[iBod]

Do you not think it "damning" enough that US soldiers no longer have to abide by the long-established and widely-accepted international conventions on Human Rights?

What exactly would you consider "damning" then?

Re:Damning changes?

[Cerberus7]

That was my first thought, too. It's convenient all around. They can use people who aren't MPs to fulfill the role of guard, which opens up a whole can of ethical worms, but it's "legal" now.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not think it "damning" enough that US soldiers no longer have to abide by the long-established and widely-accepted international conventions on Human Rights? Huh? Who said anything about not abiding by the rules? They no longer have to *carry a copy of the rules with them*, that's all.

You can see plenty of treatment rules included in the diff context, e.g. they're not allowed to give physical exercise as punishment.

Re:Damning changes?

[CRCulver]

Besides the objection raised by another response, I'd add: do you not understand the meaning of "Except for..."?

Re:Damning changes?

[DaveAtFraud]

Hopefully the liberals will continue to not figure out that whinny, over-the-top hyperbole in situations like this only gives everyone else a good belly laugh. In the past "irregular combatants" were not considered any different than spies and were executed. Sounds like we just keep them in "Club Gitmo" until we find out what they know and find a place that will accept them. Of course that's not good enough for those who also blame this country for being attacked.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Damning changes?

[foobsr]

Maybe they're outsourcing security to the inmates who've been there before in exchange for privileges.

That was working during/after WWII. My father was a POW in Camp Roswell and he had the story that they exchanged/augmented the guards for/with German officers because the Americans were too easygoing.

CC.

Re:Damning changes?

[FST777]

That's just the thing with the past, isn't it? You learn from it.

Re:Damning changes?

[rossifer]

In the past "irregular combatants" were not considered any different than spies and were executed. Sounds like we just keep them in "Club Gitmo" until we find out what they know and find a place that will accept them.

Are these the same "irregulars" who are actually dirt farmers turned in by a stranger or a feuding neighbor for the reward equal to an Afghani life savings? Yeah, I didn't think you knew the answer to that. Too busy holding your cheeks open waiting for Bush's next civil rights triumph. About a dozen of the people in Gitmo are actually terrorist suspects. Most of the rest are random civilians who were in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

But we wouldn't want to make a decision and either charge them or let them go, now would we? Not unless Bush says so? Yeah, I thought that was your answer.

You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.

I'm no "liberal". Not the way you mean it. But I'm no neo-con either.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I think you meant "no longer have to carry a little laminate card" instead of "no longer have to abide..."

No offense, but your statement seems to be reading a bit more into the document than it actually says.

Anyway, if you believe Gitmo is evil, the document will support your belief. If you do not believe Gitmo is evil, nothing in the document will change your mind. Frankly, I think the entire article is a troll.

Re:Damning changes?

[Xonstantine]

You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you. We want peace! We want it now! If you don't give it to us, we'll kick your ass.

If it makes you feel any better, Hillary will probably use the infrastructure set up Bush to indefinitely detain and recondition the members of the vast right-wing conspiracy once she takes office.

Re:Damning changes?

[DaveAtFraud]

Let's see. Twice for W, once for Dole, twice for H.W., twice for Reagan, once for Ford. Couldn't vote for Nixon since I wasn't old enough. I just wish Condi was running this time.

I find it amusing that you approve of personal violence as a means of influencing the vote. Have you considered moving to a country that approves of such actions? Also, odd that you proclaim that you're not a liberal. With your lack of logical consistency you'd fit right in.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Damning changes?

[ArcherB]

Are these the same "irregulars" who are actually dirt farmers turned in by a stranger or a feuding neighbor for the reward equal to an Afghani life savings? Yeah, I didn't think you knew the answer to that.

I do. These guys are usually interrogated locally and released or handed over to Afghan authorities. Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge. Our soldiers are not going to send some poor farmer to Gitmo just because his neighbor said he was a bad guy. Our soldiers are not morons. Besides, that would be an incredibly waste of resources to ship every one of these people to Gitmo and interrogate them for hours only to have them confess to something that never happened. Gitmo would be overflowing and the largest MOS of the US military would be interrogator! Think about this stuff before you bother posting it.

You need to stop making up stories in your head and assuming that they are true simply because they match your political views.

You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.

I find it very telling that someone who is defending the "rights" of those found actively fighting American forces in Afghanistan would threaten an American because they used their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. You're the type of logical prodigy that would beat up a counter protector at a peace march!

God help anyone who has an opinion different than your own because you're likely to simply bludgeon them. Do you ever wonder why people like me call people like you Brownshirts? And you guys call Bush a Nazi? Look in the mirror, brownshirt.

Re:Damning changes?

[overunderunderdone]

I noticed that as well. Perhaps they're using personnel other than MPs as guards. OR perhaps they are just being more specific. Which MPs in the given situation as opposed to ALL MPs present. (The MP that is guarding the prisoner as opposed to the one behind the desk taking information.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the novelty of the diff comparison is why this particular link was posted on Slashdot. For a more significant analysis of the changes between the two documents see: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Changes_in_Guantanamo_Bay_SOP_manual_(2003-2004)

Re:Damning changes?

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Following the case of James Yee, a Muslim chaplain that served at Guantanamo's Camp Delta facility significant changes were made to procedures related to the chaplain, but to find that you'd need to read the entire diff. The chaplain is not allowed any access to detainees during their first two weeks, possibly four. The chaplain has been removed from the library committee which approves reading material. The chaplain may no longer recommend reading material for the library.

The library is also impacted. Periodicals, dictionaries, language instruction books, technology or medical update information, and geography were added to the banned list.

If you just read the first dozen or so pages you'll not get the whole story, but you do get the added rules for detainees.

1. Comply with all rules and regulations. You are subject to disciplinary action if you disobey any rule or commit any act, disorder, or neglect that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
2. You must immediately obey all orders of U.S. personnel. Deliberate disobedience, resistance, or conduct of a mutinous or riotous nature will be dealt with by force. Be respectful of others. Derogatory comments toward camp personnel will not be tolerated.
3. You may not have any articles that can be used as a weapon in your possession at any time. If a weapon is found in your possession, you will be severely punished. Gambling is strictly forbidden.
4. Being truthful and compliance will be rewarded. Failure to comply will result in loss of privileges.
5. All trash will be returned immediately to U.S. personnel when you are finished eating. All eating utensils must be returned after meals.
6. No detainee may conduct or participate in any form of military drill, organized physical fitness, hand-to-hand combat, or martial arts style training.
7. The camp commander will ensure adequate protection for all personnel. Any detainee who mistreats another detainee will be punished. Any detainee that fears his life is in danger, or fears physical injury at the hands of another person can report this to U.S. personnel at any time.
8. Medical emergencies should be brought to the guards' attention immediately.

Your decision whether or not to be truthful and comply will directly affect your quality of life while in this camp.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that soldiers no longer have to carry a human rights card, what are these damning changes?

Here's the way I see it.

A few years back, I started hearing about how the USA was building a prison in Cuba. Now why would the USA build a prison in Cuba? It makes no sense. Is there no available land in Ohio or Nebraska or even Alaska? In theory, the USA is supposed to have a total embargo on Cuba - so what's this about how the USA has a lease on some land in Cuba and is using that land to build a prison? That's just weird.

OK, so it turns out that the reason the USA is building the prison in Cuba is that the Bush administration wants to circumvent some US laws intended to protect fundamental human rights. What kind of rights? Well, preventing innocent people from being tortured to death by the US government, for example. Now, maybe modern conservatives are just sick and twisted sadists who like the idea of torturing innocent people to death and who will strongly disagree with me on this - but I'd say that preventing the US government from torturing innocent people to death is very very important.

I'd go so far as to say that if the Bush administration is going to go to great effort (and do very weird things - like building a prison in Cuba) in order to circumvent US laws designed to, among other things, prevent innocent people from being tortured to death then they'd really better know what they're doing. After all, there's a good chance that these laws are there for a reason.

So what ends up happening? Well, not too surprisingly, it turns out that the US government does actually go out and torture innocent people to death. I'll note here that this is not just an unsubstantiated liberal rumor. It is an established fact that people who were clearly innocent have been tortured to death by the US government (Dilawar at Bagram is one of the more famous examples but there are many others). Now, of course the Bush administration will note that they didn't give a direct order "Go out and kidnap some innocent people and torture them to death."

What the Bush administration did do though was to set up a system that aggressively circumvented the US laws and procedures that had been put in place to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening (including doing bizarre things like building a prison in Cuba, of all places).

So what did the Bush administration do when they realized that they created a system that had resulted in innocent people being tortured to death? Did they change the system? No! Sure, they "punished" a few low level soldiers with things like letters of reprimand or, rarely, a few days of detention.

But did they change the system? Did they look at the horror of what they had done and resolve that they would make whatever changes were necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. That's what is damning. Not the changes - but instead the failure to make changes.

By failing to change the system. By leaving their most famous prison located in a bizarre place like Cuba, the Bush administration and their supporters are sending a clear message to the world that they have no remorse - even for the innocent people who have been tortured to death by the system that they painstakingly devised.

Re:Damning changes?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

They're POWs, or perhaps hostages - I can't really call some poor bastard from Afghanistan that got on the wrong side of some warlord a soldier.

Re:Damning changes?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Here we're much more civilized - we don't beat on voters (much), we just remove the ones we don't like.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy calls someone who wants to beat all who oppose his view into silence and brownshirt and gets modded troll?

Either the Mod doesn't know the truth when he/she sees it or the mod is a fellow brownshirt also and doesn't like to see his fascist brother called out!

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people in Gitmo were just average joes rounded up in sweeps and then shipped off to Gitmo to make Bush look all tough against terror. The reason that Bush doesn't charge them under existing laws against terrorism using real courts and real judges is because a real judge would laugh them out of court in 99.9% of the cases they have against people in Gitmo. The hillarious thing is they can't even get their fake judges to agree that these people are guilty of any crimes even cherry picking who they prosecute and keeping all the evidence secret from the defense.

Re:Damning changes?

[fm6]

They're also now instructed to blow their noses after using pepper spray. Yes mom!

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people in Gitmo were just average joes rounded up in sweeps and then shipped off to Gitmo to make Bush look all tough against terror. The reason that Bush doesn't charge them under existing laws against terrorism using real courts and real judges is because a real judge would laugh them out of court in 99.9% of the cases they have against people in Gitmo. The hillarious thing is they can't even get their fake judges to agree that these people are guilty of any crimes even cherry picking who they prosecute and keeping all the evidence secret from the defense.

This is absolutely true if you believe that there are no such thing as terrorists in the world, especially in places like Afghanistan.

Re:Damning changes?

[rtechie]

It's not about iPods, it's about recording devices, particularly cell phone cameras. Remember: this is post Abu Graib. The military realized that they got in trouble not so much for abusing prisoners, but because photographs and video of the abuse got out because they were recorded by the guards themselves. So they don't what the guards taking phots while they're abusing prisoners.

On top of that, the military is keenly aware that the media would pay big bucks for pictures of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo. The press blackout has been very effective. So they're threatening the poorly paid guards to keep them from selling photos.

Re:Damning changes?

[kamochan]

That's SOP in the Bush administrations' "War on Terra".

War on Terra... what a shiveringly horrible articulation of dubya's agenda...

Re:Damning changes?

[rtechie]

Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. And you know this how? Neither you nor the government, has presented one iota of credible evidence that anyone at Guantanamo has committed any crimes whatsoever. The Bush administration has fought tooth and nail to prevent any such evidence coming to light.
You do know that lots of people have been released from Guantanamo, don't you? And that many of those people have been formally exonerated by their home nations of committing any crime?

One of the people held at Guantanamo has been there since he was 14. Was he one of the "worst of the worst"? The government won't say what he did but, perversely, has described him as a "good kid" that thrived under the tender mercies of the Guantanamo guards. Staff at Guantanamo have reported that, for the most part, they don't know why most people are being held there.

These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge. First, I hate to break it to you, but "actively fighting American forces" isn't a war crime. Whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. So is interrogating them. So even assuming you're correct, Guantanamo Bay is illegal.

And you're not. Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were sold to the US Army by Afghani warlords/drug lords. And they're about as reputable as they sound.

Besides, that would be an incredibly waste of resources to ship every one of these people to Gitmo and interrogate them for hours only to have them confess to something that never happened. More like, "interrogate them for years". But you're right, it is a huge waste of resources.

Re:Damning changes?

[stubob]

I find it telling that put "rights" in quotes and are incapable of noticing that those actively fighting American forces would legally either be categorized as Prisoners of War and be held according to the Geneva Convention, or as Illegal Combatants and be held according to municipal and international law. Under no circumstances can an argument be made for legally detaining someone indefinitely, without any judicial oversight.

Re:Damning changes?

[Trogre]

Well, you see, the removal of the need to carry a plastic card at all times clearly equals the abolishment of human rights.

These madmen must be stopped now!

Re:Damning changes?

[DaveAtFraud]

Shouldn't your comment be one of those "In Soviet Russia" jokes?

You know, "In Soviet Russia we don't beat voters (much), we just remove the ones we don't like."

Of course, with the way Putin is going this may still be true again if you just remove the word "Soviet."

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Damning changes?

[rossifer]

I voted for Reagan twice, Dole once, abstained for H.W. voted libertarian in the last two.

I find it amusing that you approve of personal violence as a means of influencing the vote.

I find it amusing that you interpreted my remarks as attempting to influence how you vote. Find a lot of big conspiracies each and every day, do you?

I don't want you to change your vote. I just want to beat you to a pulp for fucking up the country I love. Bush and his neo-con handlers have done more damage to this country than a trained chimp would have done. Vote for G.W. one time because Gore is a Dem and you don't know much about G.W? Sure. I almost made the same mistake. Vote for him after four years of seeing what he's capable of? There's no fucking way. You've absolutely got to be shitting me.

You deserve to be beaten simply because you believed G.W's propaganda. The past three years? Privacy and civil rights on the chopping block of fear and cowering? It's your fault, retard. Take responsibility and cut your balls off before you breed and perpetuate the problem.

Re:Damning changes?

[rossifer]

With all of the violence that the neo-cons are prepared to dish, a little personal violence from a libertarian who is utterly pissed off at the wreckage of a country called the US shouldn't be too much of a suprise.

If Hillary gets in office, I'm leaving. I've already got the resident visa applications in the mail, so I'll be ready.

Re:Damning changes?

[aevans]

They call the vehicles "Gators", not "Golf Carts." Oh, and it explicitly says use of pepper spray may be allowed: The CJDOG, DCJDOG, JDOG S3, CO, PL, or SOG may authorize the use of OC pepper spray to preclude the use of physical force by the IRF Team/Escorts. This will be to control an unruly detainee or detainees; to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm; in self defense; to prevent a detainee from escaping; or to extract an detainee(s) involved in a riot or disturbance. Do not use OC to respond to spitters, urinators, or water throwers.

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to silence anyone. I just want to let them know how I feel about the loss of my civil liberties, privacy, constitutional freedoms.

But thanks for assuming that my personal frustration is some some grand country-wide conspiracy of violence by an authoritarian regime. That's a great argument you've got there.

Re:Damning changes?

[dcam]

I do. These guys are usually interrogated locally and released or handed over to Afghan authorities. Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge.

Really? Australia had 2 detainees in Gitmo, one released without charge, the other was given a 6 month sentence for training with the Taliban.

Then you have the British detainees who were released without charge.

Go push your Republican apologetics rubbish elsewhere.

Re:Damning changes?

[ArcherB]

Really? Australia had 2 detainees in Gitmo, one released without charge, the other was given a 6 month sentence for training with the Taliban.

Then you have the British detainees who were released without charge.

First, I have to ask, why were these guys in Afghanistan? I know it's not illegal to be over there, but unless they are working for the Red Cross or in the military, why were they there? When you dealing with intelligence, you have to ask questions like that. We know that at least one was training with the Taliban... you know, the group that harbored Bin Laden... the guy who led Al Qaeda when they pulled off 9-11. Yeah, THAT Taliban! I think it's safe to say that this guy is a terrorist at least. More likely a traitor, guilty of Treason for fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan (Afghanistan is NATO operation after all, which Australia is a member). Now what were the other two doing there? (I noticed you didn't mention Johnny Walker Lindt... he was an American FIGHTING with the Taliban).

Released is not the term I would use here. Handed over to their respected government would be more accurate. This is what happens to ALL detainees that are released. Now as to what those governments do with them, who knows? What I find especially sad is that many of these guys don't want to be released to their governments because they know that they will be treated much worse at home than they are at Gitmo.

So, Go push your terrorist apologetics rubbish elsewhere.

Re:Damning changes?

[GaryPatterson]

Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept.

People like the Australian David Hicks, who was found guilty of supporting terrorism through the nefarious act of guarding a tank. What a bastard!

If these are the worst of the worst, then Al Qaeda isn't so bad after all.

And what about those Brits who were let off with a smack on the hand? Or Mamdouh Habib (another Aussie) who was 'rendered' in Egypt for the US and then released without charge?

Gitmo is absolutely not about keeping the worst of the worst. It's about keeping suspects outside US legal jurisdiction. The question "Why?" is critical here. What reasons could there be for denying legal access to suspects?

Re:Damning changes?

[ArcherB]

And you know this how?

I know this because I was a soldier myself. Regardless of what you hear in the media, the military does not like to waste resources. Wasting money is bad. It will get you in trouble. Wasting some other's soldier's time is a HUGE No-No! Wasting someone's time who is not really military that belongs to some organization with three initials like CIA or NSA.... well, you just don't do that.

Re:Damning changes?

[FredThompson]

"And you know this how? Neither you nor the government, has presented one iota of credible evidence that anyone at Guantanamo has committed any crimes whatsoever. The Bush administration has fought tooth and nail to prevent any such evidence coming to light."

There is no legal requirement to disclose such information concerning prisoners during a time of conflict. Civilian police also do not announce every person who provides them information nor do they provide advance notice of where and when they will be performing raids, checks or sting operations. "Full" disclosure is not now, nor has it ever been, a requirement of US military or law enforcement of any type. The exception is during a civilian trial which would require all material proposed to be used as evidence to be supplied to both parties and subject to public release. No sane country is going to tell their enemies all the details of collected information. As very succinctly stated elsewhere, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

"You do know that lots of people have been released from Guantanamo, don't you? And that many of those people have been formally exonerated by their home nations of committing any crime?"

Please provide your source for this information and quantification of "many" as well as subsequent actions by the people released. To use your same presentation method: You do know that many of the released people were re-captured fighting against the Allied forces or involved in terrorist attacks, don't you?

"One of the people held at Guantanamo has been there since he was 14. Was he one of the "worst of the worst"? The government won't say what he did but, perversely, has described him as a "good kid" that thrived under the tender mercies of the Guantanamo guards."

Objection: relevance. What is the relevance of the person's age?

Objection: projection. "Perversely" and "that thrived under the tender mercies of the Guantanamo guards" are not statements of fact, they are opinions.

"Staff at Guantanamo have reported that, for the most part, they don't know why most people are being held there."

Exactly, it's a security measure. The less the guards know about why a person is there, the lower the chance of collusion. Given a Muslim military chaplain was caught and prosecuted for providing illegal support to the prisoners, such a policy enhances security for both the prisoners and the guards. If your concern is for the welfare of the prisoners, you should be supportive of this policy.

"First, I hate to break it to you, but "actively fighting American forces" isn't a war crime. "

Straw man.

"Whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions."

Please provide a direct reference to such a statement in the Geneva Conventions. Every country, whenever possible, removes prisoners from the theater in which they are captured for very obvious security reasons. During WWII, Nazi prisoners of war were held in the Southwest US.

"So is interrogating them."

Please provide a direct reference to such a statement in the Geneva Conventions. Every country, whenever possible, interrogates prisoners. They are prisoners, not winners of a free vacation.

"So even assuming you're correct, Guantanamo Bay is illegal."

Blatantly untrue as noted above.

"Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were sold to the US Army by Afghani warlords/drug lords."

Define "sold". Do you mean a bounty for capture or information leading to the capture of a wanted person? If so, explain how that concept is improper, let alone illegal.

Please provide verifiable documentation of your claim and explain how you manage to come to this information given "Neither you nor the government, has presented one iota of credible evidence that anyone at Guantanamo has committed any crimes whatsoever." (btw: you were lying there, a simple search shows evidence far exceeding "one iota".) Clarify and docu

Re:Damning changes?

[GlassHeart]

Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. [...] Our soldiers are not going to send some poor farmer to Gitmo just because his neighbor said he was a bad guy.

Your blind faith is amusing. That might well be the intention, but according to the Boston Globe, 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo by late 2004 (because I'm too lazy to track down more recent numbers). Clearly, either Bush is soft on your "worst of the worst," or the system make lots of mistakes. Deal with that fact before you consider denying people their right to be fairly tried.

The article I cited actually points out that seven of the released detainees went back to fighting the US, which you should probably also consider as mistakes.

Re:Damning changes?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Not really, I was talking about Florida.

Re:Damning changes?

[dcam]

First, I have to ask, why were these guys in Afghanistan? I know it's not illegal to be over there, but unless they are working for the Red Cross or in the military, why were they there? When you dealing with intelligence, you have to ask questions like that. We know that at least one was training with the Taliban... you know, the group that harbored Bin Laden... the guy who led Al Qaeda when they pulled off 9-11. Yeah, THAT Taliban! I think it's safe to say that this guy is a terrorist at least. More likely a traitor, guilty of Treason for fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan (Afghanistan is NATO operation after all, which Australia is a member). Now what were the other two doing there? (I noticed you didn't mention Johnny Walker Lindt... he was an American FIGHTING with the Taliban).

It is the responsibility of the courts to prove they were doing something wrong. Suspicion is not enough.

Released is not the term I would use here. Handed over to their respected government would be more accurate.

They were released because even the gitmo kangaroo courts couldn't get a conviction.

So, Go push your terrorist apologetics rubbish elsewhere.

You may not care about justice. Some people do.

Re:Damning changes?

[dbIII]

Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept.

As seen by such as the at worst petty crim David Hicks who traded his guy for a ride out of there before the shooting started. The bluff has been called and there are a lot of articles about other inmates - some are not even suspected of anything but don't have anywhere to go to.

Re:Damning changes?

[Keebler71]

First, I hate to break it to you, but "actively fighting American forces" isn't a war crime. Whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. So is interrogating them. So even assuming you're correct, Guantanamo Bay is illegal.

Which version of the Geneva Convention have you read? I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean "war crime" but meant "crime at time of war" because clearly a "war crime" is a well-defined term that doesn't really fit the context of your argument.

Whether you're wearing a uniform or not.

Now, the GC never really define who are lawful combatants and who are unlawful combatants; they do however define who deserves treatment as a POW and who do not (in the 3rd Convention). The leap from protection classes to classes of combatant, while not explicit is pretty broadly accepted as detailed in the wikipedia entry for Unlawful Combatant:

"Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".

Article 4.1.2 of GCIII clearly states that the following is required to get POW status:

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

• that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
• that of carrying arms openly;
• that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Moreover, it explicitly excludes POW status from people who resist once the territory is occupied.

Article 4.1.6 extends POW status to:

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Oh, and if the GC doesn't satisfy you - how about the Laws of War according to which "It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly."

You go on to claim: "Imprisoning prisoners of war outside the theater is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions."

Please cite your source on this. I have never heard anyone make this claim. By the way, the US held German prisoners during WW2 at POW camps in CONUS - was this a "war crime?"

And then again: "So is interrogating them."

Interrogating them (prisoners lawful or not) is not a crime. Police "interrogate" suspects every day in the country and it is perfectly legal. The military interrogates suspected militants overseas every day - again, perfectly legal. Unless by "interrogate" you meant "torture" and by "torture" you meant something harsher than the hazing I suff

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you kidding me?
i've seen the lots full of hummers and other vehicles just sitting there not being used, collecting dust and rust. it's insane how much the army wastes!

Re:Damning changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh. Have you even read the Geneva Convention? Legal combatants are REQUIRED to wear a uniform or other insignia or device to plainly identify themselves as such AT A DISTANCE. Failure to do so makes them ILLEGAL combatants and as such are NOT entitled to ANY protection under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was designed to protect non-combatants as much as anyone else.

Detainees that are found to be held without cause will eventually be repatriated (if their countries want them; which has been a problem). But, it may take a very long time. Those that are legal combatants may be held for the duration of the war (which could be a VERY long time; how do you know when the "war" is "over"?) and they DO NOT have to be held in theatre. Those that are illegal combatants may be summarily executed. ILLEGAL COMBATANTS do NOT enjoy PROTECTION under the Geneva Convention.

Re:Damning changes?

[rock_climbing_guy]

I've been going over the posts here trying to figure out what to make of it. You, sir, I believe hit the nail on the head.

Re:Damning changes?

[Paul Jakma]

Article 4.1.2 of GCIII clearly states that the following is required to get POW status:

You are misinterpreting the GC, either through ignorance or quite willfully, as no where does Article 4 say those are requirements. Rather, that is a (as we shall see) inexclusive list of indicators:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

If you're confused, read Article 5, which very clearly assigns a default status of "POW" to anyone detained:

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

If you had actually read the wiki article on the fictional "Lawful Combatant" term, you'd already know this.

You are therefore either an ignoramus, a troll or a liar.

(If you have any argument whatsoever, it would be on whether the tribunals at Gitmo are actually competant. However, it is a fact that prisoners are normally held there, outwith GC protections, prior to review by tribunal - so even that argument would be extremely weak).

Re:Damning changes?

[Paul Jakma]

Errata.. I had noted I needed to remove 'fictional' from this sentence when reviewing my post, but somehow forgot before hitting submit:

If you had actually read the wiki article on the fictional "Lawful Combatant" term, you'd already know this.

Re:Damning changes?

[vsync64]

Hey look at this:

Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: [...] 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So any Afghani or Iraqi toting an AK-47 around and fighting U.S. forces was a lawful combatant, no?

Article 5: [...] Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Every one of Bush's sham tribunals has eventually gotten chucked out by SCOTUS. Defense lawyers (when detainees are afforded them) and even prosecutors routinely complain about government pressure to ensure the detainees are found guilty, or unlawful, or whatever.

Here's a great comment from a Wikipedia footnote:

In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution - not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.) - Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) - 1994 reprint edition.

Your point about the "war" being of indefinite duration is well taken. It's why I and many others have significant problems with these undeclared wars against vague targets like "terror".

Re:Damning changes?

[vsync64]

Why are you bringing up John Walker Lindh? If he renounced his U.S. citizenship he's an enemy soldier and a P.O.W. If not he's a traitor and subject to civilian court. Except... wait a second, he was tortured and blamed for deaths caused by a U.S. airstrike. Yes, we surely are on the moral high ground aren't we.

Re:Damning changes?

[ArcherB]

Hey look at this:

       

Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: [...] 6. Inhabitants of a NON-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. So any Afghani or Iraqi toting an AK-47 around and fighting U.S. forces was a lawful combatant, no? No. I'd say that both Iraq and Afghanistan are fully occupied territories. Afghanistan has been occupied since late 2001, Iraq since 2003. Since they are not lawful combatants, the rest of your argument falls apart.

Re:Damning changes?

[sumdumass]

The alternatives to GW weren't any better.

That is why he got elected twice. Kerry was basically a parot of Bush but claiming that he had a plan so it would be different somehow. And when he talked about his plan, the only details he would give was that you could find it on his website. But when you went to his website, all you could find was an outline of a plan that mirrored what was currently happening with some premise that it would have worked somehow because he was supposed to be involved. And then after the election was over, this plan that was so good mysteriously disappeared. Kerry has offered non of it to save the country from the mess that followed his defeat.

So what I am getting at is, it doesn't matter who you voted for the second time around. You were going to get the same basic candidate regardless of which one won. It actually made more sense to vote GW then Kerry because you knew how fucked you were with ?Bush. Kerry would have had some idea of a mandate and gone further then Bush had. The last presidential election was an exorcise in to see if the process was still in place. Little more can be said of it.

Re:Damning changes?

[Copid]

I know this because I was a soldier myself. Regardless of what you hear in the media, the military does not like to waste resources. Wasting money is bad. It will get you in trouble. Wasting some other's soldier's time is a HUGE No-No!

Having spent plenty of time trying to get things done with the military, I have to disagree with your assessment. The military differs from other branches of the government mainly in that the people on the ground take their jobs more seriously. Beyond that, it's not exactly what I'd call a bastion of efficiency. Add to that the fact that they've got a hard job and not a lot of time to do it, and you have a recipe for problems.

Wasting someone's time who is not really military that belongs to some organization with three initials like CIA or NSA.... well, you just don't do that.

No, they do a pretty good job of wasting their own time as it is. Again, a huge organization doing a hard job doesn't necessarily produce great results. If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend listening to This American Life's program on the topic. The part that mentions the head of interrogations at Guantanamo complaining about getting too many "Mickey Mouse" prisoners is especially interesting. Also recommended is the Seton Hall study it references. We're scooping up a lot of people and disappearing them on what appear to be fairly thin pretenses, and we're not doing a particularly good job of correcting our mistakes or being answerable to the public about it. This isn't a matter of malice or abuse of power or even competence. It's the natural result of a system with high stakes and insufficient safeguards.

I have no doubt that a lot of people at Guantanamo are the types of people who should be locked up for good. What I doubt is that a system that encourages turning people in for sizable rewards, when combined with what appear to be kangaroo courts, is one in which we should entrust the power to lock people up indefinitely. I strongly suspect that this is going to be one of those episodes in our history that we will have a hard time defending in hindsight.

Re:Damning changes?

[Copid]

Pardon me. The proper study link is here.

Re:Damning changes?

[sumdumass]

Wouldn't this mean that the system currently in place is working then?

If so many people are being found to not be the ones wanted and end up getting released, it is kind of pointless to argue that civilian courts need oversight because of some misjustice being perpetuated by the administration.

I have to ask, are you people upset with Gitmo because people are being held there or because the Bush administration is behind it. It seems to me that all the opposition stems from any connection with Bush. It has little to do with the system itself.

I think that is a dangerous situation. We basically have a set of people who are willing to jeopardize the lives of other Americans just to gain political points. When you take a long look at the situation, you see that they are more or less democrats even though the democrats have supported this stuff enough to have it in place. This is even more troubling when you see that they are using it to talk up their political chances but refuse to actually do something about it. So far their action has been, "we can fix it only if you elect more of us to government offices". Am I the only one that is disturbed by that?

Re:Damning changes?

[rtechie]

Have you even read the Geneva Convention?

Yes. You are wrong.

Legal combatants are REQUIRED to wear a uniform or other insignia or device to plainly identify themselves as such AT A DISTANCE. Failure to do so makes them ILLEGAL combatants and as such are NOT entitled to ANY protection under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was designed to protect non-combatants as much as anyone else.

This is a deception used by those in the Bush administration that want to torture people. There is no provision in the Geneva Conventions that says they do not apply to non-uniformed combatants. On the contrary, there are several provisions that say the Conventions apply to every man, woman, and child on Earth (even non-signatories). Different groups of people fall into different categories, but EVERYONE is covered. For the most part the people in Guantanamo Bay count as NONCOMBATANTS under the Geneva Convention.

A) Most of the people in Guantanamo Bay and ALL the people in Bush's kidnapping program were seized from their homes or off the street in nations like Germany and Pakistan. They were NOT taken from the battlefield or from a war zone. According to the Geneva Conventions they should be treated as NONCOMBATANTS.

B) Even for those people taken from Afganistan, most were Taliban fighters were clearly identified by the fact they were wearing the signature checked turban of the Taliban. And the fact they carried Taliban banners. And the fact they were carrying weapons. So the clearly met the "uniform" requirement of the Geneva Conventions.

C) Failure to wear a uniform does not remove all responsibility towards prisoners Geneva Convention. It really only affects rules regarding the treatment of officers (non-uniformed combatants don't have officers). Non-uniformed milita are SPECIFICALLY covered under the Geneva Convention, and Taliban or American soldiers out of uniform clearly fall into that category.

The Internation Criminal Court has ruled on this decisively. There is no "legal limbo" category as the Bush administration describes. EVERYONE must be treated as either a prisoner of war or a civilian, period.

Re:Damning changes?

[vsync64]

Afghanistan has been occupied since late 2001, Iraq since 2003.

Yeah, I forgot, mission accomplished, LOL!

Re:Damning changes?

[tehcyder]

These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population

If you can prove they are guilty of a crime, try them and convict them. Don't just hold them indefinitely.

or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge

And since when has that been a crime?

Re:Damning changes?

[tehcyder]

More likely a traitor, guilty of Treason for fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan

NATO is an organisation, not a country. I don't believe you can commit treason (in the legal sense) against an organisation, however treacherous you might think it seems.

Re:Damning changes?

[rtechie]

Regardless of what you hear in the media, the military does not like to waste resources. This is arguably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do you have ANY experience with the defense industry? Their motto is: "Nobody knows how to piss away money like the United States Air Force." The waste in most military procurement is truly awesome. Remember that $600 toilet seat? It's closer to $2000 now. For example, each meal served in Iraq costs the military $150. That does not include labor or security, that's just the FOOD. I could fill dozens of pages just with examples from my personal experiences.

Here's another xample: F-15 Eagle version B has a radar array, the radar array works fine but there is a one line bug in the control software that occasionally causes the array to lose ID tags on radar targets (this is bad, you don't want to accidentally shoot friendlies). This grounds them. Lockheed, rather than fix the bug, uses this opportunity to sell them the shiny new version of their radar array (at 1.5x the price). As it turns out, this "new" version is nothing more that the old array with the bugfix. They go so far as to simply install a software patch on the planes they're supposed to be refitting. I believe that was about $15 million per plane.

Re:Damning changes?

[rtechie]

There is no legal requirement to disclose such information concerning prisoners during a time of conflict.

Yes, there is. This is clear under countless laws and treaties. Military prisoners are either "prisoners of war" and must be repatriated at the end of the conflict, tried as war criminals, or must be tried as civilians. Period. There are no other options. The United States has complicated this situation by refusing to treat the Taliban as a "power", even though it clearly qualifies. The United States will not negotiate terms with the Taliban, making it near-impossible to formally end the conflict.

The "War on Terror" does not count as a "war" or "conflict". We are not engaged in a formal war with Al Qaeda (who is clearly not a "power"). It is a marketing term for standard, ongoing, police work. Most "terror suspects" clearly fall under US domestic law, or foreign jurisdiction. The military should have no involvement.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Please describe how releasing the Guantanamo prisoners will lead to the death of all Americans.

Objection: relevance. What is the relevance of the person's age?

Because it's extremely difficult to believe that a 14-year-old is one of the "worst of the worst", as anyone who has experience with "the worst of the worst" and 14-year old kids should realize. Especially given the fact that ALL PLAYERS describe him as a "good kid".

Objection: projection. "Perversely" and "that thrived under the tender mercies of the Guantanamo guards" are not statements of fact, they are opinions

I think that claiming someone is both a "hardened terrorist" and a "good kid" is pretty perverse. I'll fully admit that's an opinion.

"thrived under the tender mercies" is SARCASM. I was implying that the guards did not generally treat prisoners well, which is a FACT, not an opinion.

Please provide your source for this information and quantification of "many" as well as subsequent actions by the people released. To use your same presentation method: You do know that many of the released people were re-captured fighting against the Allied forces or involved in terrorist attacks, don't you?

My sources are Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Read the websites, they list dozens of prisoners that have been exonerated. As I recall, 2 of the prisoners released have been re-arrested. That doesn't mean they've done anything.

And as several Guantanamo interrogators have said: "They weren't terrorists before they came here, but they are now." It's easy to imagine how the abuse these men suffered at Guantanamo could lead them to hate the United States and seek revenge.

Please provide a direct reference to such a statement in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention:

"Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. ...

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The text is absolutely unambiguous. This is why Bush is so keen to deny prisoners POW status.

Define "sold". Do you mean a bounty for capture or information leading to the capture of a wanted person? If so, explain how that concept is improper, let alone illegal.

That is not what happened in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan there were "open" bounties on "Al Qaeda operatives". The NA was not required to provide any actual evidence the prisoners were Al Qaeda, and even if they did it would be impossible to verify. "Open" bounties ARE illegal under US law. The CONCEP

Re:Damning changes?

[FredThompson]

Boy, you really ARE confused, aren't you?

"Countless", another unqualified statement? So...never mind the facts, your opinions are reality? Thank God reality isn't subject to your capricious whims.

You contradicted yourself again. The conflict isn't ended and the Geneva Conventions say prisoners should be released at the end of the conflict. The conflict can't exist and not exist at the same time. The Taliban is "clearly a power", like ... say ... The Roman Catholic Church? Oops, the Roman Catholic Church actually has a soverign land. The Taliban "clearly" does not. The Taliban is as much a soverign power as the Kiss Army is a soverign power.

The military is under authority of the Executive branch, not the Representative branch.

Congress authorized full war powers in a near unanimous vote. There is no such thing as a formal declaration of war. There is no requirement to "negotiate" anything. The goal is victory, not postponement of the threat. WWII did not end from negotiation, it ended by defeat, even though a few stragglers didn't know or wouldn't agree with that.

I never said anything about ALL Americans dying. Staw man, again.

It most certainly IS possible to be both a "hardened terrorist" and a "good kid" at 14 years old. A "good kid" at 14 usually means they follow the leadership of the adults who have authority over and responsibility for them. Age does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions. Your last comment in that portion of the reply shows you don't know much about children or conflict.

Exoneration by a legal proceeding or fiat does not negate a past actions. Guantanmo prisoners are the aggregate worst of the worst who have been caught conspiring, committing or providing material support for terrorism. Tellingly, you neglect to mention that some of those "exonnerated" people were caught, again, committing terrorism.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are far left agitprop organizations with an anti-American agenda. If they were truly objective, they would be coming down hardest on the terrorists, Communists and Muslim countries. They don't, which proves they aren't.

Imagination is fantasy. Projecting your conceptual delusions does not make them reality.

The Geneva Conventions most certainly do include ambiguous text. Thank you for proving yourself wrong. "any other form of coercion" cannot be defined to mean anything except, "everything."

The Geneva Conventions are an agreement between signatories concerning behavior of their uniformed military personnel. They do not paralyze the U.S. and give the rest of the world carte blanche to do anything and everything.

To be a POW a person must be a formal member of an armed force. Taliban and terrorists don't meet that requirement.

Research the definition of the legal term, "standing." You are either woefully and dangerously ignorant or willfully dismissive of the foundational concept.

"Countless authorities"? Riiiight. No attack on the U.S. mainland in 6 years just ... happened ... despite the actions of the U.S. Al Qaeda's fertilizer bomb cargo ships just ... evaporated. The tons of chemical weapons Saddam Hussein had just ... disappeared ... along with the gene-slicing and biochem equipment.

Oh, I get it, "countless authorities" means lying propagandists.

Thankfully, the world has a far larger number of responsible people than it does cavaliar lunatics.

Seriously, I'm not going to reply to you again. You're clearly ignorant and irrational, bordering on dangerous if not destructive. Take it over to Kos.

Re:Damning changes?

[GlassHeart]

Wouldn't this mean that the system currently in place is working then?

No, it means that the current system is not so utterly broken that it knowingly incarcerates innocent people. How many more people are innocent, we don't know. How many others fit the objective criteria under which some were deemed innocent, we don't know. What we do know is that the current system has made hundreds of mistakes, and normally something that makes hundreds of mistakes can benefit from oversight.

I have to ask, are you people upset with Gitmo because people are being held there or because the Bush administration is behind it. It seems to me that all the opposition stems from any connection with Bush. It has little to do with the system itself.

I can only speak for myself. I'm upset because the US government is trying to subvert US law by inventing convenient new legal concepts like "enemy combatant," by deliberately housing them in Cuba so that they're not on "US soil," etc. I'm upset that the US president can apparently designate anybody as an "enemy combatant" and strip his or her rights. I mean, if you're a Bush supporter, would you like that kind of power in Clinton's hands?

We basically have a set of people who are willing to jeopardize the lives of other Americans just to gain political points.

Life is filled with jeopardy, yet we accept some of those risks. You risk death when you drive a car, yet you do it because you need to get somewhere. America (as a whole, not just Blue or Red America) needs to discuss how much transparency it needs to trust its government, and how much secrecy the government needs to do its job. From my view point, the Bush administration isn't even interested in this discussion.

Re:Damning changes?

[sumdumass]

No, it means that the current system is not so utterly broken that it knowingly incarcerates innocent people. How many more people are innocent, we don't know. How many others fit the objective criteria under which some were deemed innocent, we don't know. What we do know is that the current system has made hundreds of mistakes, and normally something that makes hundreds of mistakes can benefit from oversight.

Sure we know how many people are innocent. It would equate to the ones being let go. And we know this because there is a review process that got them released.

I can only speak for myself. I'm upset because the US government is trying to subvert US law by inventing convenient new legal concepts like "enemy combatant," by deliberately housing them in Cuba so that they're not on "US soil," etc. I'm upset that the US president can apparently designate anybody as an "enemy combatant" and strip his or her rights. I mean, if you're a Bush supporter, would you like that kind of power in Clinton's hands?

Well, he cannot designate anyone an enemy combatant. There is only a small amount of people that can happen to. You most likely not one of them. This idea is mostly hype from people who are against the process sensationalizing it to gain support for their cause.

And no, it isn't a subversion of US law. Lincoln done the same thing and just like in today's times, when the pressure was put on him, congress passed a law and made everything OK.

And No, I wouldn't mind Clinton having the same powers. Why? Because I know it isn't as bad as you have been convinced into believing.

Life is filled with jeopardy, yet we accept some of those risks. You risk death when you drive a car, yet you do it because you need to get somewhere. America (as a whole, not just Blue or Red America) needs to discuss how much transparency it needs to trust its government, and how much secrecy the government needs to do its job. From my view point, the Bush administration isn't even interested in this discussion.

From my point of view, no one has ever attempted to have a discusion about this. They just demand X, Y, and Z while hurling insults and then claim their insults were justified because there is no response. What do you expect to happen? The dumb monkey comes down from the pedistool and asks you to repeat yourself?

I know your frustrated, You believe that life in America couldn't be worse, the world is going to hell in a hand basket and so on. Well, As far as I'm concerned the world has gone to shit ever since John Wayne died. Half the stuff your worried about is exaggerated. It has been done that way specifically to work your panties in a know so you will say something. That seems to be the modern theme with politics, build rage base from a lie, when they start suspecting something isn't wrong, add some truth that wouldn't get anyone to bat an eye at normally, distort a few more things and then watch you go out and attempt to convince everyone else how evil things are. And yes, it was done under Clinton too.

Take a deep breath, count to ten or whatever cools you off. Look at the actual laws that they are making some of the claims over and see if you can see where you can be designated as an enemy combatant and carted off to club gitmo. Better yet, look at all the assholes yelling at the top of their lungs about this happening and about how evil bush is and ask yourself why it hasn't happened to them. Or even better still, Why are we able to sit here and have this conversation? If for no reason means no reason, then surely they should be able to lock up the vocal detractors.

It isn't as bad a you think. Not even close. And seriously think about that. Look for the laws that say things like you can be swept up for no reason and held against your will. Think about the revue process that everyone said wasn't going to work yet it has cause the release of quite a few people.

Re:Damning changes?

[rtechie]

"Countless", another unqualified statement?

If it's an unqualified opinion, how could it be wrong? But US Criminal code, UCMJ, NATO regulations, the Geneva Conventions, and various other treaties make the treatment of war prisoners clear. The Bush Administration has CREATED the category of "unlawful combatant" in an attempt to create a legal loophole to torture people.

The conflict isn't ended and the Geneva Conventions say prisoners should be released at the end of the conflict.

True. Taliban military prisoners probably should not be released until the war in Afghanistan is over. But they shouldn't be tortured either.

The military is under authority of the Executive branch, not the Representative branch. ...
Congress authorized full war powers in a near unanimous vote.

Who is contradicting themselves?

It's under the authority of both. The Executive branch directs and organizes the military, but it is the purvue of Congress as to how those troops are actually deployed. The Constitution gives the power to declare war, and by extension all troop deployments, to Congress. It's up to the President to decide what they do when they get there. Congress did indeed authorize military action against the Taliban. There was a formal declaration of war and even negotiations (that were not fruitful) before the conflict.

There is no such thing as a formal declaration of war.

Several thousand years of military history seems to contradict you.

There is no requirement to "negotiate" anything. The goal is victory, not postponement of the threat. WWII did not end from negotiation, it ended by defeat, even though a few stragglers didn't know or wouldn't agree with that.

Um, no. WWII ended in a settlement between the Allies, the Axis, and the Soviets. The Japanese basically got the short straw, but there were many rounds of formal negotiations. Read a book.

I never said anything about ALL Americans dying. Staw man, again.

You said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." a neocon buzzphrase.

I think what you were trying to say was: "We should ignore the Constitution and international law regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners because if we release them they might kill Americans."

which is actually an HONEST argument. You guys don't honestly believe the law supports your position, you just seem to think that we NEED to torture the hell out of prisoners otherwise they will "get us". I also think your crowd is motivated by revenge and ethnic hatred of Arabs and Muslims. You would never even consider treating white people in the same manner.

Tellingly, you neglect to mention that some of those "exonnerated" people were caught, again, committing terrorism.

Only a few have been caught again. The number I gave was 2, the actual number is apparently 4:

In fact, almost all of the detainees who have been released, most on condition that they be subject to legal process in their own countries, have been freed, according to detainee lawyers. To cite just one example, of the 12 Kuwaitis seized in Afghanistan who claimed they were doing charitable missionary work, eight were sent home, tried and acquitted.

Some administration supporters contend that as many as 50 of those who have been released have gone back to the battle. That number is subject to dispute. The Defense Department says six named detainees have been killed or recaptured and that it "has reason to suspect" that another 25 have gone back to the battle. But of the six named individuals, two never were at Guantanamo, according to lawyers for the detainees, and the other four were released prior to any litigation.

"I've asked for evidence," said Tom Wilner, a partner at a major Wall Street law firm and one of the detainee lawyers. "I've said 'show me who's returned to the battlefield,' and they never have."

Just a thought about Gitmo

[techpawn]

Here we say that these people are the worst of the worst then try to send them to their home countries who either don't take them back (they've already been labeled a pariah but the U.S.) or they grant them a full pardon if tired in civilian courts.

I don't agree with this sort of treatment, but what should we do with them now? It's a bit late to say don't let it happen in the first place. We have a large group of people pissed off at the United States and with good reason. If we let them go and their home countries won't take them back, where should we put them?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[FredDC]

where should we put them?

Gitmo? *ducks*

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[bperkins]

What do you do when you've managed to grab a a wolf by there ears?

One approach would be to claim that it's not really a wolf, it's a bloodthirsty monster, and we don't really have it by the ears, and it's being well treated anyway. Plus no one else will grab it by the ears for us.

Or you can just take your licks for doing something that's so obviously stupid.

My claim is that you need to introduce them to the US judicial system and let it sort things out. Some bad guys might be able to slip through the cracks, but in my opinion we deserve any blowback that we get.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[techpawn]

My claim is that you need to introduce them to the US judicial system

The problem with that is we already have a system for dealing with captured solders. If the Gitmo detainees are "enemy combatants" they should have access to THAT system in all of its honest workings. When you open it up to the civilian judicial system you have things like Habius Corpus that wouldn't really work in a military trial. Also, do you open it up to JUST them or EVERY captured solder EVER?

As much as I hate it Military and civilian worlds should NOT mix, not everyone is a solder and for good reasons.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world (and the half of your population not
enthralled to Fox) told you you were wrong, but you wouldn't
listen. You fucked up, you work it out how to fix it.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[ray-auch]

If soldiers, they would be POWs and under Geneva conventions.

If not, they are allegedly civilian criminals and should be prosecuted in the civilian judicial system.

Problem with Gitmo is the US has decided these people are neither soldiers nor civilians but fall in some black hole category in between, where they have no access to civilian justice and no POW rights either.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[mosb1000]

Did you know that that system involves holding enemy combatants indefinitely until a they are released by the terms of a truce or surrender, or at the end of hostilities? Is that what you had in mind? Because we shouldn't be releasing them in that event. . .

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a large group of people pissed off at the United States and with good reason. If we let them go and their home countries won't take them back, where should we put them?

Well, you wanted them, now you have them. I suppose give them an american passport, a small house somewhere in the countryside and tell them to go live the american dream.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[techpawn]

Thank you for your insight! I assumed that the label "enemy combatant" they would then be considered POWs. But if not the logical answer is civilian courts or some form of extradition if possible, if not then the US civilian courts. But would they get a fair trail in the US?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[lymond01]

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.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Yvanhoe]

Judge them in a fair trial. Give innocent people compensation for their unfair imprisonment. Give every people compensation for their mistreatment if there were any.

You know, treat them as you think human beings should be treated ? Yes, almost exactly like an American. Time for a quote :

"Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
--- Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I know this is non-binding. But nowadays its violation by governments is considered a good excuse to wage a war.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Archtech]

"I don't agree with this sort of treatment, but what should we do with them now?"

The same thing we in decent free nations, under the rule of law, do for anyone who has been wronged. Free them, and punish those who wrongfully imprisoned them. Right up to the very top of the tree - the place where the buck stops (although the present incumbent doesn't think so).

Today I heard something truly hilarious on a BBC news broadcast. The reader described the US intelligence report that says Iran stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons years ago, then reflected: "This runs contrary to the received wisdom in Washington".

The received *what*?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[MoonBuggy]

A question I've been wondering about: what's the official logic behind Guantanamo, and the UK's recently extended provisions for holding terror suspects without charge?. I find myself thinking "holy crap this is a bad thing, surely if they think there is enough evidence that these people deserve to be imprisoned then they must have enough evidence to charge them with a crime and take it to trial", but obviously some very powerful people believe otherwise, and I've never really seen anything examining their reasoning against that held by myself and apparently many others.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[ikkonoishi]

What do you do when you've managed to grab a wolf by the ears?

Slit its throat.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW

You completely missed the point of the term "enemy combatant". It was entirley from the start intended to side-step The Geneva Convention and to deny POW status to people, so that we could have more liberties with the "worse of the worse" (which ended up often times being innocent farmers with the nerve to stick up to warlords).

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Telvin_3d]

I think any open public trial would be a step up.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[belligerent0001]

I say that we provide them the rights under the Geneva Convention....There is a mention (look it up I'm too lazy) that un-uniformed combatants can be classified as spies, saboteurs, etc. and therefore be shot on site without trial. I like that way better. A $.05 .223 round verses several years at $30,000/per year of tax payer money for each jihadi. You do the math...Fuck'm

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you read the geneva convention.

Specifically:

1. They shall be enabled to receive the individual or collective relief that may be sent to them.

2. They shall, if their state of health so requires, receive medical attention and hospital treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

3. They shall be allowed to practise their religion and to receive spiritual assistance from ministers of their faith.

4. If they reside in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, they shall be authorized to move from that area to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

5. Children under fifteen years, pregnant women and mothers of children under seven years shall benefit by any preferential treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

Please tell me how Gitmo violates this. And no, this isn't a "black hole category" we're dealing with here. This is well established international law.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[FST777]

With which hand?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose give them an american passport, a small house somewhere in the countryside and tell them to go live the american dream. I suppose sell them an american passport, a small house somewhere in the countryside with a nodown, high interest subprime mortgage and tell them to go live the american dream deeply in debt.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Lars T.]

What do you do when you've managed to grab a wolf by the ears?

Slit its throat. With your third hand, I guess.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[overunderunderdone]

... Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

This is the problem. The Geneva convention states that only a competent tribunal can determine the status of a detainee . Until that happens they are assumed to be legal combatants and POW's. (Article 5 of the GCIII).

I'm not saying this as an opponent of the President or the war. The Geneva conventions are less than ideal when dealing with people you know are going to to abuse the rights given to POW's. Adhering strictly to them would likely have resulted in the deaths of both US personnel and of POW's (POW's are allowed freedoms and possessions you really don't want to give a bunch of fanatical dead-enders that glorify suicide attacks). Many of the decisions about how to deal with the detainees were made immediately after the prison battle of Qala-i-Jangi. Still, the geneva conventions ARE clear on this, and US policy didn't adhere to them. Perhaps tribunals set up in country and working in an expedited manner to merely establish status (but not war crimes) would have been workable.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

If we let them go and their home countries won't take them back, where should we put them? I flush shit down the toilet. We just need to make a toilet big enough, or cut them into little pieces first.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[porpnorber]

Um, am I reading this differently from everyone else? It says, enemy combatants are "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government," then "Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention," and finally "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."

So the idea here is that an 'enemy combatant' is someone working for a hostile foreign government; and that these are subdivided into 'lawful combatants,' those who are working for a hostile foreign government, and 'unlawful combatants,' who are not. Thus an unlawful combatant is someone who does and does not work for a foreign government. The logic we learned at school allows us to conclude immediately that there is no such person.

Soldiers are covered by the Geneva convention; civilians by the usual laws. There is no third case, because you either are or are not an enemy combatant, 'a citizen who associates themselves with the military arm of an enemy government.' Where's the flaw in this reasoning?

Finally, of course, the President gets to decide? Who made him God? I thought the US was a Western democracy, with the rule of law and all that good stuff?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

A question I've been wondering about: what's the official logic behind Guantanamo, and the UK's recently extended provisions for holding terror suspects without charge?

I don't know the logic behind Guantanamo Bay, but the UK's provisions are a very different thing. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay are there for years at a time with no prospect of being charged, or may face secret military tribunals. The UK thing is not like that at all.

The thing in the UK is an attempt to increase the time a suspect can be held before they are charged; it is expected that at the end of the time limit (which is a few months at most) they will either be released, or will face criminal charges in an open trial in a civilian court. The purpose of the extended period is to give the civilian police extra time to investigate alleged crimes. The reason this is required, according to the government, is that the UK has stricter evidence laws than the USA (wiretap evidence is not admissible, so even if the police heard suspect A discussing a terror plot with suspect B over the phone, they have to find a different way to prove it!), and in the UK the police are not allowed to continue to interrogate a suspect after they've been charged.

I can't say I totally agree with all that. If you don't have enough evidence to prove someone is guilty, you shouldn't be arresting them in the first place. But I disagree with it less than I disagree with Gitmo, because at least the Brits are not trying to keep people out of their civilian court system indefinitely.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[ThePeices]

"...and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents..."

So therefore the people taken from other countries are not technically 'enemy combatants' as they were not trying to enter your country. So they still fall under a non-defined grey area, assuming the above statement is the official word.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[ultranova]

"Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
--- Universal Declaration of Human Rights

US is showing the spirit of brotherhood. Of Kain...

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How do you know that Gitmo only (or even mostly) contains soldiers?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It gets complicated. From what I understand, the Geneva conventions originated as a treaty based system. Certain countries entered into mutual agreements that, in the event that they ended up at war with each other, there were certain limits to what they would do to each other.

That's actually somewhat counter-intuitive because it's like a situation where it's only illegal to murder someone if both you and the person you're murdering have signed contracts agreeing not to murder each other.

From certain point of view, a country can only be guilty of war crimes if that country has signed onto the Geneva conventions agreeing not to commit war crimes. You might think that only a few countries, governed by the most corrupt dictators, would have not signed on to the Geneva conventions but there are actually a whole series of Geneva conventions and the USA has not signed on to some of the later Geneva Conventions governing conduct during internal conflicts such as civil wars and insurgencies.

Anyway, when the Bush administration talks about "unlawful" enemy combatants, they are actually conflating two separate issues - whether someone is covered by the Geneva conventions and whether someone who is covered by the Geneva conventions has violated provisions of the conventions. To give a specific example, a civilian murderer is not protected by the Geneva conventions (a civilian murderer can not claim POW status) but civilian murder is also not prohibited by the Geneva conventions (civilian murder is not a war crime).

The thing is, the Bush administration wants to have it both ways. On one hand, when it comes to POW status, the Bush administration wants to treat Guantanamo detainees as if they do not fall under the Geneva conventions. On the other hand, when it comes to charging the Guantanamo detainees with war crimes, the Bush administration want the detainees to fall under the Geneva conventions.

From what I gather, the detainees at Guantanamo come from a diverse variety of circumstances. For some individuals, the Geneva Conventions may apply and, for other individuals, the Geneva conventions may not apply. What bothers me is the double standard: if you're going to charge a particular individual with war crimes then you'd better also be offering that individual all the other protections that arise from being covered by the Geneva Conventions (particularly before you've got around to having a fair trial to establish that the individual is actually guilty of war crimes - if they're not guilty then they're just a standard POW).

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[bockelboy]

Except that Quirin was overturned when the US signed the Third Geneva convention (due to the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution). You can't selectively pick partly from previous case law (which was overturned by an international treaty) and said treaty. Or, at least, that was the Supreme Court's decision.

According to the Third Geneva Convention, you must have status determined by a military tribunal; until then, the prisoners are POWs. In the case that they are unlawful enemy combatants, then they must be handed over to the domestic courts.

So, already, we have a problem because the status was never determined by the military tribunal, so they should have been POWs. However, if they did go through a military tribunal, the next step is to hand them over to the domestic courts. However, the Gitmo site was selected *specifically* because it was not US territory - that way, the administration argued, domestic courts could not touch them. This way, they could stuff humans between the Geneva Convention and the US courts without giving them basic human rights.

Of course, the Supreme Court ruled that any place that US has complete jurisdiction in, the courts have jurisdiction, which is how we ended up with the military tribunals which congress authorized - although there is argument as to whether these can be considered "competent" courts.

One line of speculation considers that one reason that the whole Geneva Convention stuff has been avoided a lot by the Bush administration is that if Geneva doesn't apply to the prisoners, Geneva doesn't apply to the captors. The thought is that for some of these torture incidents, US personnel could possibly be prosecuted for war crimes. Of course, this part is speculation.

The Bush administration way, way overstepped when it started denying POWs basic human rights - and most of it was based on the legal footwork of Gonzales, even before he became AG.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[nuzak]

It's awful convenient how "illegal combatant" has now morphed into "enemy combatant". As in, we basically can treat anyone we label the enemy like we want, anywhere, any time.

And apparently these people are so awful and dangerous, it would destroy the country to actually charge them with any crime.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Foolicious]

Quiet you. None of this practical information stuff.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[HTH NE1]

You use your teeth, after first leveraging the wolf's mouth away with a knee to the chin.

Or so Dwight Schrute told me.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[whoever57]

"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."

Remind me again, what with what government are the members of Al Qaida and the Taliban associated?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

Either try them fairly in a court of law or let them go. Fear is not a good foundation for running a society.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[aevans]

Which basic human rights were denied? Also, which military tribunal is authorative to you? Do you think a Taliban tribunal should determine the enemy combatant status? Or Belgian?

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[aevans]

nice quote: It starts with a deception: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." While true, all newborns are born with no dignity or rights. It continues with an inacccuracy: "They are endowed with reason and conscience..." Not all humans necessarily possess reason or conscience. Certainly not in equal measure. And concludes with an ambiguous, wishful suggestion: "and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." That doesn't declare anything or specify any rights.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[aevans]

The Taliban. And/or Al Qaidi.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Yvanhoe]

This is a declaration of intent, of ideal. This is neither a statement of fact, neither a law.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[couchslug]

"What do you do when you've managed to grab a a wolf by there ears?"

Your realize that you shouldn't have captured a wolf, and that lawful means of wolf-hunting exist that kill the wolf from a distance thus obviating the need for "ear-holding".

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[dbIII]

It can't be done. Torture was not even considered a reliable method of gaining information in 1920s USSR so any established US legal system will not accept the evidence. That is why there was a long and expensive effort to set up an entirely new legal system just for people in GITMO and that is why they are being held offshore in a theoretically lawless zone in the first place. By taking care that the law does not apply in the way the prisoners have been treated and completely ignoring any form of due process it makes it effectively impossible for a judge to determine which evidence is real so they would be set free. There's been so much crying wolf that we cannot reliably find which ones really are wolves any more. We've gone so far down the road that the only punishements that can be carried out are the extrajudicial ones of "shot while escaping", "fell down the stairs and broke his neck" or "found hanging in their cell" - are we going to go that far to prevent release? The rule of law has been thrown out the window for barbarism covered in a thin layer of paint and it can lead a long way down. Comparing with other far worse places that don't believe in the rule of law would be missing the point.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Anonymous Coward]

""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 ..."

See, that's the problem right there, because I don't see how a President can do that. Under the Geneva Convention people fighting and captured in a war zone (i.e. enemy combatants) are to be treated AS prisoners of war, with all the rights and priviledges therein, until such time as a hearing is held to determine whether or not they qualify as prisoners of war. It's like a default status. The term in the Geneva Convention for the hearing is "competent tribunal". It's implied that this is in some judicial/legal sense. Obviously, neither the US President nor any other head of state is a "competent tribunal", and they aren't given the power under the Geneva Convention to simply declare individual people as "unlawful enemy combatants". Period. The End.

How people transition from being captured to being "unlawful enemy combatants" without somehow passing through the "treat as if a prisoner of war pending a competent tribunal" stage is a mystery that the US government still hasn't really solved for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It is plain that some haven't been treated as prisoners of war during their imprisonment (the argument being that they aren't entitled to it because they aren't POWs is irrelevant until the "competent tribunal" has determined such). Yet they haven't gotten properly designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" either -- YEARS later. As of June, NONE of the prisoners there had officially been designated as such, in any way that has held up in court. Whole cases have been thrown out because the furthest tribunals have gotten is to call them "enemy combatants", not the "unlawful" part. The best example is the case of Omar Khadr, who was 15 at the time he was fighting in Afghanistan, 5 years ago, and whose trial has been held up multiple times because of the problems with this designation without a proper procedure being in place.

"Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination."

His word is final? Oh, really? And by what authority is he able to do that? Where in the Geneva Convention does it say heads of state can designate anybody? And why has the Supreme Court of the US disputed the nature and result of the process multiple times? The military tribunal process has been revised over and over again. Even so, according to the article above, NONE of the 380 detainees in Guantanumo in June had been actually designated "unlawful enemy combatants". If the president's word was final, then why the difficulty?

Maybe Mr. Bush wrote it in a memo and wished really hard, but it hasn't held up in the courts. IF the prisoners are "unlawful enemy combatants", then they are civilians that can be prosecuted under domestic law, where Mr. Bush's word may indeed be final (if the law is codified that way). The courts have concurred with that view, and you are right about it. But prisoners have to GET that designation first via a "competent tribunal", according to the Geneva Convention, not by presidential declaration.

If one of our civilians were captured in another country in a war zone and accused of fighting, would you want it to be as so simple a matter as having the head of state declare them an "unlawful enemy combatant", strip them of any POW rights, and treat them under the local laws? Think *really* hard about it.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[general_re]

Except that Quirin was overturned when the US signed the Third Geneva convention (due to the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution).

You cannot "overturn" a decision by the Supreme Court via treaty, and the supremacy clause says no such thing. Or perhaps you imagine that, say, Brown v Board can be undone merely because Congress ratifies a treaty that says separate-but-equal is just A-OK.

In a word, no.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[sjames]

A supreme Court ruling CAN effectively be overturned for future cases by passing a new law provided that law is Constitutional. If not, you can change the Constitution. Naturally, unless the provision against ex post facto laws is also removed, that change can olny affect future cases.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[Copid]

The problem with that is we already have a system for dealing with captured solders. If the Gitmo detainees are "enemy combatants" they should have access to THAT system in all of its honest workings.

Yes, the CSRT is an impressive system...

MALIK: Regarding the charge that I worked at several guest houses and offices, what was the work?

JUDGE: I cannot answer that. This is the first time we've seen the evidence. I know nothing more than what is written here.

MALIK: Same with me. I don't know anything about this. Regarding the charge that I was frequently seen at Osama bin Laden's side -- who saw me?

JUDGE: I don't know.

We all know that there's nothing better for justice than being railroaded by secret evidence.

Re:Just a thought about Gitmo

[ikkonoishi]

You throw yourself over its head and slide your legs around its body. Use your bodyweight to pin it to the ground.

A single wolf, while dangerous, is not generally much of a challenge if you are prepared. If you are not prepared, and it came close enough that you had to grab it by the ears then it would have killed you already if you hadn't.

If there is more than one wolf then the best you can hope for is to take this one with you or injure it enough to make it wary of humans in the future.

orwell

[illuminatedwax]

Anyone who's read 1984 or Animal Farm knows just how powerful diff is politically.

Re:orwell

[scubamage]

From this day forward diff will be known as "rm." Please update all records accordingly. Sincerely, the ministry of homeland security.

Re:orwell

[Cus]

~$ diff -s humans pigs
Files humans and pigs are identical

Guess you're right :)

Re:orwell

[Alsee]

I think you just made the opposite joke you meant to make.

The ministry of homeland security issues that directive to all of their personnel. On all of their computers they take "diff" and rename it to "rm". Interesting and quite predictable results ensue.

That security directive ranks right up there along with directing employees to black-out classified information in government issued PDFs :)

-

Take one in for Christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Zonk should take one prisoner in for Christmas.

Damning?

[rindeee]

Yawn. Wait, I mean; "Rally the protesters! Where's the guy with the drum?! Everyone knows any good protest has to have some jackass that beats a drum while we chant our witty rhyming mantra!"

Re:Damning?

[spun]

Oh look, it's Mr. Sit-on-his-fat-ass-and-bitch guy, bitching about people who actually act on their beliefs and try to make the world better. Not that I can really find anything all that damning in the docs, but why paint all protesters as idiots who get worked up over nothing? Maybe you are envious? All real progress in the world has come from people like the ones you insult, not from people like you.

Re:Damning?

[rindeee]

Since you took the time to reply to me, I figured I'd answer your points one by one:

YOU SAID: Oh look, it's Mr. Sit-on-his-fat-ass-and-bitch guy, bitching about people who actually act on their beliefs and try to make the world better.

I SAY: Really? Fat? 6'2", 190lbs. Act on beliefs? When I joined the Reserve some years back, I did exactly that. I have served forward in the middle east for the last 18 months, and will not be returning to civilian life for about another year. I'm not complaining in the least (except it hurts financially of course) because this is something I chose to do out of principal, rather than sit and bitch (or go out in the street, beat a drum and bitch).

YOU SAID: Not that I can really find anything all that damning in the docs, but why paint all protesters as idiots who get worked up over nothing?

I SAY: Because the vast majority are. Sorry, but it's a fact. Go to your average protest where the 'drum beaters' are present (San Francisco, Berkely, where ever...you pick, just naming a few I've observed) and talk to the folks. The majority have absolutely no grip on reality and are emotionally driven to the point of incoherence.

YOU SAID: Maybe you are envious?

I SAY: No, I can assure you that I'm not the least bit envious.

YOU SAID; All real progress in the world has come from people like the ones you insult, not from people like you.

I SAY: That, my friend, is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read. Congratulations, you have ascended to a higher level of stupidity.

Re:Damning?

[spun]

You expect me to respect you more for signing up to go invade a foreign country and kill people who never did anything to us? Tool. I've talked with plenty of protesters, and the most retarded activist out there is a damn site smarter than you. You aren't doing anything to change the world or make it a better place. Your morals are out of whack, and the things you think you're doing for the greater good are making us more enemies, not making us more secure. You aren't keeping us free, you are fighting for masters who would make us slaves. Congratulations, you've made the world a more dangerous place through your actions. People who sit on their fat asses are better than you, at least they aren't making the world worse. But oh, I'm sure every single one of the people you've killed was a bad guy. Have fun sleeping with your guilt and nightmares for the rest of your life.

Re:Damning?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt he wants your respect. Having the respect of a scumbag is not a compliment. It is an insult.

Re:Damning?

[spun]

Then thanks for the compliment.

We're all boiling frogs

[Peter Cooper]

Reading this article made me realize just how we've all fallen victim to the "boiling frog syndrome". Ten years ago it would have seemed nuts to be reading, and hearing about, the operation of concentration camps in the West, other than when reading about WWII. Now we read stuff about concentration camps, internment, loss of habeas corpus, the US kidnapping people from around the world, etc, and it's all just regular, "same old" news. A few people still feel a little shock, and even fewer actually bother to do anything about it, while the rest of us twiddle our thumbs and either hope it'll all go away or think that "well, we've done nothing wrong, so we'll be fine."

I wonder what sort of stories we'll be reading in another ten years that would shock us now but will seem like regular occurrences in 2017? Thoughtcrime executions, archived recording of all telephone calls (the European Union is already working on this!), incarcerating people because they have the "genes" of a potential psychopath (again, the EU is looking into this)? It's gunna happen and we'll just keep boiling like the frogs we are.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[InsaneProcessor]

"I wonder what sort of stories we'll be reading..."

The keyword here is "stories". I am really wondering how much of these Wikileaks documents are just stories (fiction) and how many are really leaked documents. These could be so easily fabricated. I question all sorces (/. included) on the internet as anything can be faked here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/blackout.asp

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

A few people still feel a little shock, and even fewer actually bother to do anything about it, while the rest of us twiddle our thumbs and either hope it'll all go away or think that "well, we've done nothing wrong, so we'll be fine."

just keep voting democrat. that's the solution. they'll draw us out of this problem.

oh wait...

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I miss a memo? When did we create an a concentration camp? Sorry, but when I think of those words I think of two of the more commonly known examples of concentration/internment camps: the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII and the German Concentration camps. Now, how can we even compare anything we are doing today to that? I do not see ever Muslim living in America being thrown into a camp. Hell, I do not even see a large majority. I will admit that some of the powers granted by unconstitutional laws like the PATRIOT Act are disturbing; but to state that we have known internment/concentration camps is bordering on the absurd.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[GreyPoopon]

Reading this article made me realize just how we've all fallen victim to the "boiling frog syndrome [wikipedia.org]".

Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view? As others have mentioned, glancing at the diff doesn't seem to produce any truly "damning" evidence. The real tragedy is not the way the SOP dictates that the prisoners (I won't stoop to calling them the PC detainees) be treated, but that they have spent so much time incarcerated without a trial. I'll admit I didn't got through the entire diff file in detail, but maybe you can save the rest of us the trouble by being more specific about what little hints you see that indicate that the frog is in the pot and the temperature is slowly rising. Or are you just meaning that Guantanamo (in general) in combination with the other stuff you mentioned (which is unrelated to the SOP) is the sign that the dial on the stove is slowly being turned?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[BigDumbAnimal]

Get over yourself. Calling Gitmo a "concentration camp" is nuts.

Read the SOP. They are issued Korans, pray related items, clothes, toothpaste etc., and get this 'Wet wipes'. WET WIPES!!! Let me know when prisoners are beaten, maimed, gases, burned, frozen, shot, or made to watch their children murdered.

Let's contrast this with these lovely freedom fighters, who for a little while were video taping a beheading-of the-week to be played all over the world. They murder innocent people by the thousands in the name of Allah. Lying to/about infidels is encouraged. SOP for detainees is to whine about mistreatment, torture, Koran mishandling, etc.

These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply. But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[DrFruit]

Most Americans are probably such decent people, that they simply cannot accept the real facts anymore when they are - on rare occasions - presented to them. Not only are they swimming in boiling water, but when a visitor in the kitchen points out the fact that someone is cooking you alive, you doubt his motives for upsetting you.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Peter Cooper]

Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view?

It was the implicit notion I had that went.. "hey, reading this actually seems semi-normal nowadays.. and that shouldn't be the case." We shouldn't have to read about this crap because it shouldn't be going on in the first place but now it's part of the same-old.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Skrynesaver]

Internment: Detention without trial

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing the terms "concentration camp" and "nazi concentration camp". The former doesn't imply mistreatment; it's merely a place where people are held (or concentrated) without trial, typically in wartime. So Gitmo is a concentration camp. That's a simple statement of fact.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading this article made me realize just how we've all fallen victim to the "boiling frog syndrome".

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
--James Madison

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[91degrees]

These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Yes it does. The Bill of Rights applies to the government of the US. Any mention of people is "The People". Not "citizens of the US".

These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Read the Geneva convention. Find out who the rules actually apply to. It's not limitted to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state.

And you're assuming that these people have actually done anything wrong in the first place. Sicne we're not allowed to see any evdence (and neither are they) we're taking this as on faith.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[nickos]

What you need to do is campaign for electoral reform so that votes cast for parties other than the Republicans and the Democrats are not wasted. Might I suggest Proportional Representation as used by many countries other than the US and the UK.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[BobandMax]

In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Wilson signed the odious Sedition Act of 1918 and Franklin Roosevelt interred citizens unsuspected of crimes. All of these actions were against US citizens who had not acted against the republic.

Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar. Please cite the federal statute that provides for these protections so that we may be enlightened.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

++

Of course, to complain about the real problems that really exist in Gitmo won't cut it - they are too small. So they have to abuse strong words and lie deliberately.

What really scares me is the (mostly unchallenged) leftist bias everywhere. And I'm not even American, I'm just talking because, if USA fall, my country won't stand a chance.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sique]

Please get your facts straight.

1. About half of the "lovely freedom fighters" are sent home already, and none of them ever got charged with anything. Obviously at least half of them were never "lovely freedom fighters". Whoever they were, they surely aren't THEY beheading innocent people and videotaping them.
Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals.

2. A concentration camp is something else than an extermination camp. Concentration camps were set up and are set up to round up people deemed somehow dangerous without ever telling anyone why exept for some general accusations. Germans were using the term "concentration camp" because it didn't have the horrible sound until it was discovered that the German concentration camps in fact were extermination camps.

3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[megaditto]

First they came for the terrorists, but I said nothing because I was not a terrorist.
Then they came for the child rapists, and I still said nothing because I am not a child rapist.
Finally, they came for me, but the child rapists and the terrorists could no longer protect my freedom?

Do you really think that's how it works?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis used your argument, and it got them hung. How does it feel to be a Nazi?

They are HUMAN BEINGS, almost all (perhaps even all!) of whom are INNOCENT! Legal standing means nothing compared to the simple fact that they are living, breathing, innocent people whose only crime was to be catch some soldier's roving, malevolent eye.

The people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay are not the people beheading contractors in Iraq. If they were, that would be one thing. But they're not; THEY ARE INNOCENTS!

"We treat them far better than any other military" is complete horseshit. Somehow that makes it OK, just because we're better than the next guy?

Oh yeah, you raped that girl, but at least you didn't scar her face with a dirty knife like the other guy, so that makes it OK, right? Right??

Do not insult my heritage, my blood, my family, my country by comparing "us" to "them" and excusing our abominable behavior just it is "not as bad as them".

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[antibryce]

I'm glad to see someone else pointing this out. If a U.S. citizen were found trying to overthrow Musharraf or the Saudis he'd be taken out into the street and, if he's lucky, shot in the head. If he's not lucky he gets his head sawn off.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're basically saying the US has the right to detain any non-US-citizen who is also not a soldier of another country, because they stop being humans the moment the US says so, and so human rights shouldn't apply. Way to go. I wonder, though, how you would react if some other country started "legally" holding US non-military personell without trial. After all, a US civilian in $country is not a citizen of $country, therefore, human rights don't apply, and he is also not military, so Geneva is out. I figure you must be shit scared of going abroad.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them.

Is morality relative or absolute?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

1: That's factually incorrect. Dozens have been charged in their home countries.

2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least.

3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Blue6]

1. The United States never signed the full Geneva Convention. 2. "The People" are the citizens of the United States i.e. those who consented to be governed "to formed a more perfect Union" We have just tried for the moral high ground on most issues.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[MadJo]

People are being sent there without just trial! You say "bill of rights + constitution" do not apply, how about the laws of the country where they were taken from? How about human rights?
The US is in the business of kidnapping people and imprisoning them without any form of trial or appeal. How is that fair? How is that just? How is that according to your rules of the land?
To me that's bullying behaviour: "We don't like him, let's put him behind bars in a place where he can't hurt us."
How many innocent people are in Guantanamo Bay?
And why did the US built that prison in a foreign country?

I can't believe you can still sleep at night.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unless you're not a citizen in which case we can hold you without Liberty or Happiness for no reason. Ok, maybe we have a reason but we don't have to tell you why or even give you a chance to defend yourself. (I realize that is the Declaration of Independence but it was the first thing that came to my mind). The Bill of Rights you just pointed to was based on Enlightenment ideas about human rights.

This isn't about tit-for-tat, its about what we *should* be doing. You can't talk about Liberty and Democracy without equal justice for all. While we could go on and on about equal justice in this country - if you don't even get charged and have a trial there's really no chance of having a fair trial.

It is a concentration camp (note: concentration camps aren't just the death camps built by the Axis during WWII). The concentration camps built by the US for Japanese-Americans in WWII were also concentration camps.

Holding people without trial is just asking for abuse. That's why that whole Habeus Corpus thing was put into the Constitution.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[DrFruit]

"By a process of elimination, we have found out that you are not an A or B class human being. So now we can do with you as we please." The fact that CERTAIN people (suicide bombers, beheaders) do horrible things, does not give you the right to consider OTHER people as second rate. This seems very hard to grasp for some people, but the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are most likely NOT all criminals. In fact, none of us can determine how many of them are guilty of anything, as the US has made it impossible for them to get a decent trial and for us to be a witness to that.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Its hard to get concrete evidence on a terrorist that kills in a country where the acquaintances are afraid to come forward. That is why many are released. Freedom fighter implies a fight against a government, these people fight civilians, that makes them terrorists - THAT IS CONCRETE.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I'm from Canada too!

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[kalidasa]

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!

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let me know when prisoners are beaten, maimed, gases, burned, frozen, shot, or made to watch their children murdered."

Apparently you have no problem holding innocent people in prison, without trial, without access to lawyers, without family contact, for 6 YEARS of their lives.

Man, what an opportunist scumbag. Someone makes a comparison to concentration camps, and you jump up on your podium and start proudly trumpeting how humane your prison camps are!

"Let's contrast this with these lovely freedom fighters, who for a little while were video taping a beheading-of the-week to be played all over the world."

Sure, let's wipe our misdeeds under the table by pointing at worse criminals next door! The fact remains, you and the operators of these prison camps are criminals and abettors of criminals, and the fact that worse criminals exist in the world does nothing to temper that fact.

"They murder innocent people by the thousands in the name of Allah."

Who does? The people you're falsely imprisoning? Nope. If they had, you might give them trials. Why don't you give them trials? There is one obvious reason. You think they'll be set free. Now why might that be...?

"SOP for detainees is to whine about mistreatment, torture, Koran mishandling, etc."

Yeah, those whining ingrates! They should be licking our boots for imprisoning them in such a fine jail!

"These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply."

The fact is that the Bill of Rights is clearly not limited to US citizens, and our country is based on liberty and justice for all. That you would rant to the contrary only shows you both a bald-faced liar and a traitor of those values.

You don't believe in liberty nor justice. You just take them for yourself. This is hypocrisy and worse.

"These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply."

I see. They're not soldiers, but they're not not soldiers. Hmm, what are they... I know! They must be alien invaders from Mars! Oh, sorry, wrong line, they're "illegal combatants." What's an "illegal combatant"? Well, nobody is quite sure, but we know they don't deserve trials, yessirree!

"But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them."

Oh, good for you. "Look, Frankie next door catches frogs and burns them alive! Why are you mad at me when I only poke out the eyes of the ones I catch?!"

Scumbag.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[spikedvodka]

These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply. But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them. Run that by me again... where in the Constitution, or any of it's amendments does it claim that the rights are only for citizens. in the few cases where it does care (i.e. Voting) it uses the term citizen, as opposed to "the people"

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the bill of rights only applies to citizens, and not everybody under US law.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

bold is the new cruise control for cool! But remember to steer! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Alsee]

The keyword here is "stories". I am really wondering how much of these Wikileaks documents are just stories (fiction) and how many are really leaked documents.

Even skepticism can be elevated to the level of paranoia and insane conspiracy theorism.

In some cases here we are talking documents that have been out a couple of years, for which there is not the slightest hint of denial or discreditation. Documents which, if they were not authentic, it would be unreasonable to presume they would not have been denied and discredited by now.

A source that has repeatedly proven itself to be supplying bogus information (answersingenesis I'm looking at you), has earned a a general presumption of unreliability for other content from that source, and anyone (certain Slashdotters I'm looking at you) are behaving as unreasonable irrational trolls if they recognize and admit the information from that site has repeatedly been proven bogus, yet they persist in returning to that site for more arguments and persist in a presumption of validity for the site in general. On the other had a source that has a proven track record of reliability has earned at least a cautious presumption of validity for their new additions. Yes, it is possible that any given new document on wikileaks could be a fake, yes it is reasonable to be cautious and explicitly consider that it could be denied and thoroughly discredited tomorrow. However it is unreasonable and bordering dysfunctional paranoia to outright dismiss anything and everything just because there is a chance something might eventually prove false.

If someone "leaks" a document and the supposed source (in this case the government) calls it a fake, then extreme skepticism is appropriate. If someone "leaks" a document that could easily be denied and discredited, yet there is absolutely no controversy and absolutely no denial and discreditation, then active skepticism is unreasonable. ("Passive" skepticism... the expectation that one can and will reverse their current beliefs if and when there is evidence to do so... that is always appropriate.)

I would say this document is presumptively legitimate, with the proviso that I will freely and actively dismiss it if and when there is a reasonable indication that it it is not legitimate.

-

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sancho]

There's good reason to doubt. Maybe it's all a conspiracy to make us completely unsure of what's real.

Here are some reasons to doubt news stories:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36694-2005Mar15.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490838/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece

Major news outlets carried falsified stories in order to gauge citizen reaction. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you feel that the above stories might be fake, we're in the same boat--not knowing what to believe.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Comatose51]

"But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them."

Sure if they were actually all guilty but the problem is that most of them have never been on trial and their guilt have never been established. We already know of cases where some of them were found to be innocent and released after losing a few years of their lives in prison for nothing. Throwing someone in a county prison for years without trial isn't exactly being merciful.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[spikedvodka]

not sure if it meets your deffinition of "federal statue" but there's this little document called... oh what was it again... "The Constitution"

Amendment V

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.
(Emphasis mine)
it doesn't say "No citizen", or "No person except, enemy combatants"... it says, very simply and plainly. "No Person"

We we arested the devil incarnate for whatever... be it aiding terrorism, petty larcany, or sedition, I would expect him to be given the same rights as any other person, citizen or not

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[A beautiful mind]

In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,

It was wartime and the US constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus under specific conditions. Lincoln didn't violate the constitution.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Seldom have I seen such a well-chosen nick.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[rbanffy]

"These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply"

So, what you are saying is that because Gitmo is not subject to the rule of the US constitution, those civilians who were captured have no rights under it and that because they are civilians, they have no right under the GC. So, in fact, they have no rights whatsoever. And that everything is OK because they are allowed to practice their religion and brush their teeth.

And you somehow think it's right.

Keep in mind a lot of them were captured during the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on the US and whose largest offenses were being ruled a obnoxious dictator that pissed off the POTUS and who have every right not to thank the US because they were bombed back to stone age and then invaded by so called liberators. If at some point in the future some foreign power decides to invade the US and a civilian resistance movement starts, would you be OK with your fellow countrymen being held in a legal limbo? Would it be fine to torture them as long as they can practice their religion and brush their teeth?

If Gitmo is not part of the US, then what is it? Part of Cuba that has been invaded for so long that Cubans don't care anymore? Shouldn't it be under _some_ law?

And, BTW, the US Constitution applies to everyone within any part of the US territory (including embassies, planes and boats in international waters) and not only to US citizens. It's sad (not to say it betrays the legacy of your Founding Fathers) to think one can bend _this_ law to serve any purpose.

I hope this shameful episode will end someday.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, the famous "US democracy - still better than Saudi Arabia!" defense. Beware, though - one day you might run out of worse countries.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Tassach]

In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Wilson signed the odious Sedition Act of 1918 and Franklin Roosevelt interred citizens unsuspected of crimes. All of these actions were against US citizens who had not acted against the republic.

So that makes it OK?? You can't arrest me for committing murder, officer, because [points to someone else] HE killed someone and didn't get arrested for it, therefore it must be OK.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why that whole Habeas Corpus thing was put into the Constitution.

But Habeas Corpus may be suspended in time of war, and we are at war. The War on Terror!!!!! Which will go on indefinitely, so Habeas Corpus is suspended indefinitely. And I don't care if you don't like it. Shut up and get back to work. People on welfare and the lawmakers who hand out money are counting on you!

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[mdarksbane]

But many of them weren't taken in combat.

Google around a bit - some of the guys who have already been released once they finally started having military hearings about their cases have nothing to do with terrorism.

For a while there we were offering a cash reward for anyone who would sell us a terrorist. So countries used that to point out anyone they didn't like and have them sold to us and sent to Gitmo. Two guys were just cartoonists who made fun of their local government! But it took over a year at least for them to be released.

Even ignoring full civilian trial rights, we at least need some sort of legitimate defense so that we have to prove that people were actually enemy combatants before we lock them up. I'm sure even with a court-appointed lawyer we wouldn't have any trouble locking a guy away for the moment because there was eye witness testimony he was shooting at American soldiers.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[genner]

Seeing as most of the writers of that document owned slaves( who weren't considered citizens) you'd be hard pressed to look at it any other way.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[The Rizz]

1: That's factually incorrect. Dozens have been charged in their home countries. Charged with what, exactly? And with what evidence? If the US had that evidence, and it was valid enough to stand up in a US court, and not just in some third-world kangaroo court, why were they released?
Also, even if all these "dozens" of people were actually guilty, exactly what percent of the total released detainees was that? What's our guilty:innocent ratio here?

2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least. And once again, you refuse to accept that "concentration camp" != "death camp". The camps we sent Japanese-Americans to in WWII were considered "concentration camps", and they were a hell of a lot nicer place than Gitmo.

3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? The possibility that one or two of the hundreds of detainees might do something like that in the future is not justification to hold everyone remotely suspected indefinitely. That is not justice, that is tyranny.
Besides, I'd say the dots aren't that hard to connect: Take hundreds of random persons. Kidnap and torture for a period of several years. Release. Expect no ill will, and certainly no reprisals from any of them.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[redscare2k4]

BS.
So you're telling that just because tortures are not detailed in this SOP (though tortures do happend there, do not fool yourself), everything is fine. That it doesn't matter that there's a lot of innocent people. That a lot of people is there based just in "being at the wrong place at the wrong moment". Or that those guilty are held without charges.

Just have a look at a google
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&q=released+guantanamo+innocent&btnG=Buscar&meta=
http://digg.com/world_news/Seventeen_Innocent_Guantanamo_Detainees_Released
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6515701.stm

For God's sake, the US is running a concentration camp and half the US population agrees or just doesn't care! There's something really really bad going on in that society.

And then your only argument is that "we're treating them better than they would treat us", and using bold... You should be ashamed of yourself.

So if some nation soldiers just went into your country, kidnapped you, kept you in prison for years without charges, and tortured you, it would be OK cos you're not a citizen of said nation nor you're an uniformed soldier of your country. Yeah, right.

When the "good guys" have such takes on ethics, one wonders what's the different between both sides in the so called "war on terror" :'(

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[toddhisattva]

Please get your facts straight. That's funny.

About half of the "lovely freedom fighters" are sent home already, and none of them ever got charged with anything. Obviously at least half of them were never "lovely freedom fighters". Whoever they were, they surely aren't THEY beheading innocent people and videotaping them.
Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals. Here's the fact Club Gitmo bashers need to learn: we do not need to take prisoners.

The only reason Club Gitmo exists is because we are such damn great people.

We could shoot these people in the field. No muss no fuss. These things happen in war. Innocent people die.

Instead, at great expense, we take them to a Caribbean island and duly process them.

We have to go through all this B.S. because the enemy does not wear uniforms. They take pains to look like civilians. And when we make a tiny mistake through excess of caution, by collecting a civilian - that is our fault? We're the big baddies because we took care not to shoot first and ask questions later?

Good to know whose side you're on. I predict that after the next successful terrorist attack on the US mainland, it will be very unhealthy to profess such support for the enemy.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly can't believe that people still bandy about this misinformation. I hope you're a troll, in which case, well done.

As other people have pointed out, it is fallacious to assume that everyone in Guantanamo is a "freedom fighter". Many people have been released without being accused of anything - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Bill of Rights don't have anything to do with citizens vs non-citizens. It's just a list of things that the government CAN'T do, at any time, to anyone. It's not a list of rights that citizens have, it is an explicit list of the powers that the federal government does NOT have.

The Geneva Convention is quite clear: if someone is not a uniformed soldier of a sovereign state then they are an ordinary criminal and MUST be dealt with by the civilian legal system.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[The Rizz]

In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. [...] All of these actions were against US citizens who had not acted against the republic. And these actions were wrong. They shouldn't have done it. Bringing up past wrongs does not make present ones any less wrong themselves.

Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Bush acted against people who were vaguely accused of vague crimes by people who may or may not have had a grudge against them, and where little or no evidence beyond the base accusation existed.

Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar. Then you are not familiar with many legal theories.

Please cite the federal statute that provides for these protections so that we may be enlightened. How about the Constitution? The Constitution sets limits on the government, and only in very few and specific situations does it specify that those limits only apply to US citizens.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[evil_aar0n]

> Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals.

Easy. If everyone's locked up, no one can cause any trouble, right? I thought that was the Republican goal. Lock everyone up. It's the only way to protect our Freedom.

> Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens.

Hey, we're Americans. We can do whatever the fudge we want. What are you, some sort of terrorist-loving Liberal?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[evil_aar0n]

+1 Lame - replying to my own reply

There's a missing /sarcasm tag after the last line. Apparently the filter ate it, much like the homework-eating dog...

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[huckamania]

"The possibility that one or two of the hundreds of detainees might do something like that in the future..."

This has already happened and innocent people were killed because of it. Many of the incarcerated people in Gitmo are raving mad anti-anything-not-muslim murderers.

"and not just in some third-world kangaroo court"

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I think the only thing that would make you happy would be to grant them citizenship and give the food stamps. Maybe throw them a parade?

"concentration camp" != "death camp"

Wrong again. The "death camps" were specially designed "concentration camps". Even the camps that weren't "death camps" were the sites of horrific deaths due to overwork, malnourishment, disease and random bullets.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

"2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least."

That may be the most delightfully absurd sentence I've ever read.

"Sir, you're going to need to come with us. No, I can't tell you why. No, you can't contact your family. No, we have no idea if or when you'll be released. However, you will be getting wet wipes."

"Woohoo!"

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

>We're all boiling frogs

Frog legs is good eatin'

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Xonstantine]

We we arested the devil incarnate for whatever... be it aiding terrorism, petty larcany, or sedition, I would expect him to be given the same rights as any other person, citizen or not Then you are establishing a legal burden that has never been followed in the past. For example, during the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans used English speaking infiltrators dressed as American soldiers. By your claim, these Germans, who were all executed as spies, were not given "their proper 5th Amendment rights". Simply absurd.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[BagMan2]

Trials are for criminals. These guys aren't criminals, they are soldiers in a new kind of war. I don't recall putting all the German soldiers that were captured on trial before tossing them in prisoner camps. The only difference here is that the enemy is not represented by a well defined country, but rather a more loosely defined movement. We need to adapt to this change in reality to defeat them. You are naive to think that you can treat these people in a traditional criminal manner.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Run that by me again... where in the Constitution, or any of it's amendments does it claim that the rights are only for citizens. in the few cases where it does care (i.e. Voting) it uses the term citizen, as opposed to "the people"

Isn't it obvious? The whole constitution starts with "We the People of the United States." When it refers to "the people" it refers to people of the United States.

The detainees are not of the United States.

Now, where it says "person" that means anyone and is another story... so one could argue that some parts of the constitution apply to the people (of the United States) only, and others apply to persons in general.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

>Is morality relative or absolute?

It depends.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Psychopath]

How many innocent people are in Guantanamo Bay? The answer is somewhere between "none of them are innocent" and "all of them are innocent". Come to think of it, that's the same answer for all prisons.

The problem isn't that we are imprisoning people in Gitmo. The problem is that they are imprisoned based solely on the belief of their guilt by the US federal government, instead of on the belief of guilt by twelve average idiots. You know, the type of folks that let O.J. go. That's partially because good citizens routinely do everything they can to avoid serving on a jury, and lawyers routinely try to get the dumbest, most malleable jury possible.

Personally, I think Gitmo is an admission by the federal government that our existing judicial process is too fucked up to adequately process suspected criminals.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Kymermosst]

You missed the part where it says "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces" - which could be construed to cover the enemy combatants given that they were arrested by the land forces.

The only part left for them is the due process part.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[The Rizz]

I think the only thing that would make you happy would be to grant them citizenship and give the food stamps. Maybe throw them a parade? I think the only thing that would make you happy is if people stopped caring about "the rule of law" and just accepted that people might be "disappeared" every once in a while.
If it works for South American dictators, it should be good enough for the North American ones, too, eh?

"concentration camp" != "death camp"
Wrong again. The "death camps" were specially designed "concentration camps". Do you have no concept of what != means, or are you really just that thick?
Just because some concentration camps are death camps does not mean that all of them are. Concentration camp is defined as "a camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined". Harsh treatment is not required to fit the definition. By this definition, Gitmo is most definitely a concentration camp.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Red Flayer]

In wartime, US presidents have often violated the Constitution, citing threat to the republic. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Wilson signed the odious Sedition Act of 1918 and Franklin Roosevelt interred citizens unsuspected of crimes. All of these actions were against US citizens who had not acted against the republic.

And after each war ended, the US Supreme Court found that the acts were unconstitutional. Are you saying that simply because peoples' rights were violated in the past, we have a duty (or a dispensation) to ignore the principles that we supposedly stand for?

Bush acted against enemy combatants unidentified with a governmental entity and who are killing US troops. Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar.

Enemy combatants? Sorry, what enemy? A criminal organization? A foreign state? A mythical bugaboo composed of all the world's terrorists?

Please cite the federal statute that provides for these protections so that we may be enlightened

I'm sorry, you have it backwards. Rights are innate, not granted by statute. Please provide the federal statute that permits the US to ignore the enumerated (and unenumerated!) rights of these people.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Etrias]

*BUZZZZZ* You are incorrect, sir. If that were to happen, there would be a huge international incident because as Jon Stewart once said, "We may not be very good at nation building, but we are still top notch at nation un-building." Especially when our cowboy present just loves pulling the trigger on that sort of thing. Besides, with Pakistan and the Saudis, expect us to send in a whole division of diplomats, 'cause we just love them! Or the current government does anyway. In fact, you may want to look at all the times we set up puppet regimes we thought would be friendly to our interests until they strayed from where we wanted them to go. Search for it and I think you'll find some familiar names.

Besides, aren't we supposed to be the good guys, the ones above torture, the ones idealistic about truth and justice? That "eye for an eye" thing is pretty passe, if you ask me.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sancho]

1) is something that maybe should be rectified. What parts did we sign?

2) is something that may need to be decided by the courts. The Constitution is a document enumerating the powers of the federal government. There's no particular reason to believe that, in the below phrase, "person" refers only to "a citizen."

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law Going down a bit:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. No one is even mentioned here. This is a clear restriction on the powers of the government, with no regard to the status of the person being punished.

All of that is without regard to the specific charges at Gitmo, which might be a happy and fun place, full of hugs and bunnies. I'm not arguing anything about Gitmo--I'm specifically refuting you and your statements regarding to whom the Constitution applies.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Lars T.]

Read the SOP. They are issued Korans, Do you expect the guards to bring their own to throw into the toilet?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[sheph]

Is it so hard to understand that the 5th ammendment was written in a time when we were not dealing with a group of individuals who think it's a good idea to kill Americans? Yes they should be treated with a certain base level of human decency, but it seems that many here have overlooked the fact that #1 they are not American citizens, and #2 while they are not soldiers of a particular recognized military organization they are neither your average joe civilian either. What do we do with these guys? Do we say "yes we know you're trying to kill us, but because you're not an American citizen, or the member of a recognized military organization we'll just let you get back to your busines"????? Think about the consequenses. We can't just let them go. We're fighting in an arena that we have never had to fight in before. It's kind of like fighting against gangs in the streets when they dress in suits and ties and blend in with the business men. It's no longer obvious who is benign and who is looking to take you out. So all of you who have so much criticism for the way this has been handled (not to say it couldn't have been handled better, but) what's your good idea of how to deal with these issues? Let's hear your plan. If the way we are doing things is not right then what is?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[F1Rumors]

These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply. But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them.

I believe that you have just argued that all National powers have the right to detain non-citizens. So if you are ever abducted (special rendition is something you seem to agree with) to another country and held in a "not concentration" camp with access to wet wipes and a religious book of your choice, you have no cause for complaint. Even if you are held there for years without charges being brought, whilst regularly water-boarded and deprived of toilet paper unless you are in need of a reward...

Of course, I suspect that you believe that the US should follow different rules to the rest of the world (in which case, you are a bigot, but that's another matter).

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

There is one key phrase in the constitution (that even you quoted) that makes it okay. ". . . 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; . . .". This phrasing is in the constitution because otherwise simply going to war would violate our own constitution. By definition, going to war will "deprive people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". It's impossible to go to war without doing this. You can't hold everyone you're fighting up for trial.

I think the argument here is that the "detainees" weren't captured as part of a war, but you can thank congress for first allowing the president to make war without congressional consent, and the granting of an act of war in this particular case.

Maybe you should actually READ the constitution before making such claims.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

We are holding them til the war on terror is finished, then, if they are good, we will release them back to the blown up place they came from.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Concentration camp: "a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained." - Webster's Dictionary, Tenth Edition

Pretty sure you've fallen prey to an "Affirming The Consequent" fallacy there. Just because Nazi Death camps were Concentration camps does NOT mean all concentration camps are the equivalent of Nazi Death camps.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Stormcrow309]

Actually, when someone does not act within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions, such as not wearing a distinct uniform or mixing within the populace, then all rights are withheld. For example, Klaus Barbie was a German Officer who did two things in Lyon, France. First, he rounded up Jews and sent them to concentration camps. Second, he executed members of the French Resistance. When tried in the 80's in France, he was convicted of crimes against humanity for the deporation of the jews, convicted of life of imprisonment. However, even though he was personnally involved in the brutal torture of Jean Moulin and the deaths of many of the french resistance, he not convicted of any crime against the french resistance. This was due to the fact that the french resistance acted as illegal combatants due to violating several distinguishing components of the Geneva Convention. Many SS and SD officers have been convicted against crimes against civilians, but not for crimes against guerilla fighters.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Blue6]

The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with treatment of captives in an armed conflict, exactingly prescribes an opt-in regime. "High contracting parties" to the agreement are duty-bound to honor its terms with respect to the other high contracting parties; others, be they countries which did not sign the treaty or non-state forces, may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the treaty's terms for the recognition of non-party rights. -This only applies to "Sovereign nations" that have signed, it dose not cover freedom fighters or terrorist or whatever the P.C. / Non P.C. Word of the week is. The U.S. did not sign Protocol I of the convention which would of granted convention rights to "non-state forces" Yes you are right "The Constitution is a document enumerating the powers of the federal government" you left out one key thing which government. The United States it applies to the United States and it's citizens not those of any other country. Same with the Bill of Rights - A statement by the U.S. government saying it will respect the rights of those who have "Consented" to it goverence i.e. it citizens and legal aliens.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Nimey]

I've had more than one person tell me that the Constitution's protections *shouldn't* apply to non-citizens.

Bah.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sique]

1: That's factually incorrect. Dozens have been charged in their home countries. The NY Times disagrees. It counts exactly one conviction (in Australia), 10 charges and 3 pending cases for all detainees, former and present ones.

2: If these people are getting wet wipes, then it's not a concentration camp in the least.

3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? Everything else I agree with (especially with the irony ;) )

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[rhizome]

There is one key phrase in the constitution (that even you quoted) that makes it okay. ". . . 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; . . ."

Bzzt, read the entire sentence. The exception to the 5th amendment "in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger," refers not to whether the 5th applies to non-citizens, it refers to the first part of the sentence, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." This means you can't be arrested for a capital crime without a grand jury, unless it's a time of war or you're in the military/militia. That's it.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[FiloEleven]

3: We aren't mistreating non-US citizens, we're interrogating and gaining intelligence from suspected and known terrorists. So, if we let one go and they end up flying an aircraft into another US building, killing thousands, can we expect you to denounce the US government for "not connecting the dots", like everyone else does? Not me. I will accept the chance of 3000 more deaths by another attack before I accept the guarantee of trampled rights for 300 million citizens and an unknown number of foreigners.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

first of all, they don't need to be charged because they are prisoners of war and other related types. any country who goes to war will have the same setup. It only seems like the US is doing it because the pissant countries that seem to be at war in other locations just kill their prisoners and avoid the entire expense and trouble of holding them for an extended period of time.

Would you prefer the second happen instead? A country has a fundamental right to suppress people dangerous to them in times of war.

Second, of all the people being detained, very few if any are there without cause. There is a validation system similar to the habeas corpus process in the court system that is done when the prisoners are taken into captivity and again once a year to ensure that we still have who we think we do for the right reasons.

Third, the prison wasn't built in a foreign country, it was built at a naval base. The extent of which is in a foreign country. I suppose you would like the prison built in your back yard so you can be cannon fodder for escape attempts and such? Another reason they are on a naval base is because of political asylum. the first country they enter after leaving their own is obligated to allow political asylum under international treaties if it is found that they are politically persecuted in their native country. But this is unlikely a defining cause simply because they enter another country before making the trip to club gitmo.

It isn't what you are trying to make it out to be. Just like this Diff isn't what people are attempting to make it out to be. You can continue to live in never never land or you can grow up and live with the rest of us. It is your choice.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[nick_davison]

1. Please explain how detaining people not connected to those crimes helps fighting the criminals. We British tried this one with awesome effect during internment in Northern Ireland. It works like this:

• Arrest and abuse everyone, regardless of evidence.
• Turn the hearts and minds of the people utterly against you.
• Have vastly more people become terrorists in outrage at the complete disregard for due process that you're demonstrating.
• Now you have far more terrorists. Which makes catching them even easier.

See how much easier it is to fight criminals when you ensure there are far more of them to catch? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. One is hard to hit. Pack the barrel to the brim and you're bound to hit something.

It was only under our foolish return to the rule of law and acting with honour again by the late 90's that we had largely stopped outraging the populace. We had far fewer people responding to our behavior and becoming terrorists and found that the population no longer supported the terrorists' actions and no longer offered them safe houses. Do you know how hard it is to catch a terrorist when there are hardly any left?! It was a complete disaster!

3. Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens. I believe the administration's preferred term is "undermenschen"

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[91degrees]

Wearing a distinct uniform is not a requirement under the Geneva convention!

But aside from that, under what authority is the US detaining these "illegal combatants"? What justification do they have for not telling them what they're accused of and for not giving them a fair trial? If it's so certain that they have broken the terms of the geneva convention then try them as war criminals. It's about basic human rights.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

We could shoot these people in the field.

The ones who were captured in the field, sure. What about the ones who were kidnapped in e.g. Pakistan, well away from any battlefield?

Nice to know you're so susceptible to GOP brainwashing, though.

We're the big baddies because we took care not to shoot first and ask questions later?

Tell that to the massacred innocents of Haditha. Tell it to all the wedding parties you bombed. Hell, tell it to all the mourning families of the allies your shittily-trained gung-ho pilots have killed.

You're better than Saddam. You're better than bin Laden. You're better than the Taleban. But that's really not saying much.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Unless it is actually stated in writing, we can not assume that the clause only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen.

I could interpret "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;" as:

In times of war or public danger, any person detained by the military (either land or naval) do not enjoy the right of having their case heard by a grand jury.

I don't agree with how things are being done. I am only pointing out the dangers of assuming what "in cases arising in the land or naval forces" actually mean. This is why we have a court system and a congress. Either of which has the power to make that judgement either by interpretation (courts) or by clarification (congress).

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

If you take a "I can neither confirm nor deny that" approach to everything, then everything is questionable whether or not it is genuine. The minute you start denying any particular document, story, etc there is a silent implication that if you don't deny another story, it must be because it is true. Also, if you deny the validity of the document, people are going to want to see the original so they can compare it to the fake to find the truth. Even then, you may not want to admit there is an original document.

That holds true whether you're a government, business dealing with trade secrets, etc.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[compro01]

There is one key phrase in the constitution (that even you quoted) that makes it okay. ". . . 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; . . .". This phrasing is in the constitution because otherwise simply going to war would violate our own constitution.

from my reading of that, that exemption would appear to only apply to persons in military service to the US (allowing for things like military courts under the UCMJ), not to anyone else, such as prisoners.

i still say put 'em on trial in civilian court, just like any other suspected criminals. i do not particularly see why they are so different from any other criminal organization, which are handled through the same process.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[compro01]

i'd personally take the "when in actual service" part to say it refers only to the US' service personnel, not to any prisoners, but the interpretation of that is the court's job, which is why it ought to go there.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sique]

If you mange to read this aloud with a straight face you are in the books for one of the greatest comedians ever :)

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[TechnoSF]

Don't forget that the US invented concentration camp during the civil war. It's an American tradition.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Flambergius]

Whether you disagree with this policy or not, the internees are not eligible for constitutional protections under any legal theory with which I am familiar.

I do understand that this does not qualify as a legal theory, but as an ethical theory I consider this a fine one: you should tread people in a certain way, not because who they are, but because who you are.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[azc]

Wow, after reading this nonsense, who would have thought that BigDumbAnimal is really a big dumb animal

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[legirons]

Aside from the fact that Gitmo is similar to a concentration camp, what did you read in the article that leads you to that point of view?

I think he already mentioned that he was looking at the long term view. Why would he need to justify it in your terms (paraphrased: "this example hasn't got too much worse during the last year")

Try answering his allegation that Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp -- let's see how the real questions face up to scrutiny?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

"In wartime,"

Where is this declaration of war?

e.g. see http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Cajun Hell]

Is it so hard to understand that the 5th ammendment was written in a time when we were not dealing with a group of individuals who think it's a good idea to kill Americans?
..
what's your good idea of how to deal with these issues? Let's hear your plan. If the way we are doing things is not right then what is?

Here's my plan: have the government obey the law, so that people will still have some shred of respect for the law, and respect for America itself.

When the government flagrantly disobeys the law, it sends a message that law is unimportant. That means it is ok for me, you, your local crackdealing scientologist child-pornographer, and everyone else, to do whatever seems expedient, without regard for law. Law is not worthy of respect. We create a culture of lawlessness.

In addition to being illegal, it is also contrary to the values that have have written that we hold. We create a culture of hypocrisy.

We lose respect, both abroad and for ourselves. It's a life with no honor.

If the law (i.e. the 5th Amendment) is obsolete, no longer applicable, or inconvenient, then I have good news for you: there is a legal process for correcting the error! Repeal the 5th Amendment, or otherwise pass an Amendment that says it's ok for the government to hold people without trials. Do that, and you will have corrected the illegal behavior and the hypocrisy. We'll be obeying the law, and we'll no longer be claiming that due process is something we particularly value. American will be respectable again, even if perceived as "evil" by certain bleeding hearts.

It's no big deal, is it? Surely the American people would support fixing a bug in the Constitution. Why can't we repeal or modify the Bill of Rights, or the inconvenient parts of it? Do you see some sort of problem with that?

Surely, you don't think that voters would reject that idea, in the mistaken belief that it would be a step toward a nightmare society. Heh. The very idea!

Put your ballot box where your soap box is: advocate repealing/amending the Bill of Rights. Talking about how it's a good idea to break (rather than change) the highest law of the land, just makes you look like you're in the same class as the terrorists. They break laws too. They talk about godly behavior, and then go murder people. Sound familiar?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sancho]

I didn't see the word "citizen" in any of the bits that I quoted. And the word Citizen (capitalized, even) is used liberally throughout the constitution. It seems that the framers were quite clear on when something applied to any person (they used the word 'person') and when they applied to citizens (they used the word 'Citizen.')

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[nuzak]

Leaving aside the rest of your Manly Righteous Boldface Rant, let's just go with this one (in more effeminate italics:

These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Perhaps next year when you take your high school civics class, you'll find that there's hardly any part of the constitution that applies only to citizens. The right to vote, and elegibility for office are about the only ones, in fact.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Ogive17]

People are being sent there without just trial! You say "bill of rights + constitution" do not apply, how about the laws of the country where they were taken from? How about human rights?

Not that I disagree with you.. but I wouldn't say some of these people had many rights to begin with living under the Taliban rule.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[celtic_hackr]

Before spouting off, RTF Constitution!

Could say the same thing to you.
While his argument was wrong, he may have actually had the right conclusion, as "a matter of law". While I totally disagree with what they are doing over there in Gitmo and the other super sekret hidden prisons, they may actually have a legal leg to stand on. You mentioned it yourself but didn't connect the dots.

in time of war or public danger

This could be called a time of public danger, but I'm sure that'd be a stretch. Fact is the Bush and military are going to get what they wants, precious.

Also, it's not like these people are innocent, after all they were trying to kill our troups, but they should be called what they really are, prisoners. Not going to happen at least not until 2009, unless someone impeaches that traitor to American principles living in that white mansion in DC.
Oh to dream...

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[ahabswhale]

Regarding getting your facts straight...

Please explain why you can mistreat people just because they aren't U.S. citizens. Technically, they can mistreat you even if you are a U.S. citizen, and they have.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Cerebus]

Suspect != guilty. HTH, HAND.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sancho]

You'll never change these people's minds. For the record, I agree with you. The Constitution is quite clear when it refers to citizens and when it refers to persons.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sancho]

The clause in question is:

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 I think it's very clear that these are the exceptions:
- cases in the land forces
- cases in the naval forces
- cases in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger.

If you aren't in the militia, it doesn't apply to you. If you're in the militia, but it is not a time of war or public danger, it doesn't apply to you.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Cerebus]

The only reason Club Gitmo exists is because we are such damn great people.

I take it you've never heard of Theresienstadt.

Instead, at great expense, we take them to a Caribbean island and duly process them into cells where they wait years without charge or adequate access to services they have rights to.

There, I fixed it for you.

And when we make a tiny mistake through excess of caution, by collecting a civilian - that is our fault?

Not so tiny to the guy who's life you destroyed. Or his kids, who're now less likely to be friendly to the next uniform he sees.

Personally, I love your argument. "Anything short of killing these people outright is OK because, well, we were such nice people for not killing them outright."

The Great Jeebus ghost in the sky must love you lots.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Cerebus]

Also, it's not like these people are innocent, after all they were trying to kill our troups, but they should be called what they really are, prisoners.

So being kidnapped by an Afghani warlord and sold to the coalition forces as an al-Qaeda operative for the bounty sans any evidence whatsoever now constitutes trying to kill American soldiers?

I only ask because it's happened. Multiple times.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[mvdwege]

Is it so hard to understand that the 5th ammendment was written in a time when we were not dealing with a group of individuals who think it's a good idea to kill Americans?

Like, oh, the English government and their sympathisers in the colonies?

Sheesh, if you need a Dutchman to point out that you don't know your own history, you're really not doing your best to dispel the stereotype of the Stupid American, now are you?

Mart

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[greengrocer]

Did God say something about "I won't destroy Sodom if you can find 10 righteous people there."?

How many guys with stories like this would it take to make Gitmo "a bad idea?":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501227_pf.html

Five years of his life gone. So you can feel protected here from "terrorists" 5000 miles away, with 3000 miles of water between us. Were the "wolverines" from Red Dawn terrorists? Last I heard, only nineteen mostly *Saudis* were convincted in absentia of 9/11.

Peachy.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Stormcrow309]

I refer you to article 4.A.2.a on the distict uniform requirement. Specifically states 'That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance'.

If we accord them POW status, then they cannot be tried except for laws of the detaining power or international law, yet can be held for the duration of the conflict. However, if not accorded POW status yet acting as a beligerant, they are in legal lembo, as in convention 4 articles 5 and 42. Basicly, they have no rights according to the conventions. If the detaining power invokes article 42, they can be held for the duration of the conflict. If the detaining power invokes article 5, then they are to stand trial. In addition, due to provisions of convention 4, they can be held without any outside communication if determined important for security reasons.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[mvdwege]

About those Germans in American uniforms, you do realise that:

1. These fellows were subject to summary execution under the laws of war anyway?
2. That the accusation of fighting in US uniform is not commonly levelled at Gitmo detainees? In fact, most of the unlawfal combatant definition seems to rest on them not wearing any uniform at all, convenient because the US did not ratify the 'spontaneous militia' clause of the Geneva Conventions.
3. That in fact, the commander of Operation Greif was tried for ordering his men into US uniforms?

Now, the day the US actually sets up a tribunal to make clear the status of those detainees in Gitmo is the day we can talk legality. Until then, Gitmo is a breach of the laws of war, and in contravention of both the US Constition and precedent set in international law by the US itself.

Mart

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Poppa]

Enemy combatants that are not wearing a uniform are considered to be spies by the Geneva Convention. They should be shot on sight as they were in WW2.

A vacation in GITMO is more than they deserve.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[huckamania]

Two people who know how to read a dictionary.

It's less of a stretch to compare 'Nazi Death Camps' to 'Concentration Camps' then to compare Gitmo to 'Concentration Camps'. Less then 300 prisoners, not much of a concentration. Maybe we should call Guiness and tell them we've found the world's smallest 'Concentration Camp'. Also the most hospitable.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sique]

Who exactly of the detainees in Guantanamo did? Convicted because of material support for terrorism (e.g. not mistreating anyone himself, just abbeding and helping) is a single person right now, and he's from Australia.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Oldav]

How incredibly apt your slashdot ID is. As usual, non US citizens ahve less rights than US citizens. My guess is your so thick you dont even understand why a large part of the world now loathes your country. Kidnapping foreign citizens and detaining them without trial, with no evidence that would stand in a court of law is simply uncivilised. Ever heard of th UN convention on human rights? There is plenty of evidence of prisoner mistreatment, including deaths in cutody by the US army in the last 5 years, if one is not so bigoted as to ignore the mountain of evidence.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[91degrees]

That's be one of six categories that can be taken as POWs. Others include people working for the armed forces (e.g civilian technicians), and "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

I'm not quite sure which part of the law allows them to be held in legal limbo. I really don't see what part of basic humanity allows them to be held in legal limbo either. Article 5 makes it clear that their status should be determined by a tribunal. It's a violation of their human rights to hold them without trial andnot as prisoners of war. And the "security reasons" sounds like a some cynical lawyering to me.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[sheph]

Please don't misunderstand. I was not advocating holding prisoners indefinately without a trial. I think that's BS too. What I meant (and I probably didn't state this as plainly as I could have) is that when the 5th ammendment was written we knew who our enemies were. They wore uniforms and the side a person was on was clearly defined. I'm not for locking every single suspect until we decide the war is over, but my point is what do you do with these peolpe who are fighting against us yet they aren't part of the military. I'll wholeheartedly concede that we should not be breaking our own laws. However, we do have a very real problem here that needs a real solution, and in the mean time we have to find a way to be able to fight against an army that blends in with the rest of the civians, is not contained within any particular set of borders, and doesn't follow any of the international laws including the Geneva convention.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[GreyPoopon]

It was the implicit notion I had that went.. "hey, reading this actually seems semi-normal nowadays.. and that shouldn't be the case."

What I really wonder is how much of this stuff that we never heard about has gone on for decades. I think from your point of view there is the possibility that we are being conditioned to accept it so that it can eventually be taken to a whole new level. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. I personally think that the media has just become more interested in reporting these kinds of things than in the past, but I may be wrong.

One thing of potential interest... if you weren't already aware, you might find it intriguing to know that the US really _has_ been guilty of concentration camps in the past. During WWII, "internment" camps were set up for Japanese living in the US, primarily as a response to the Japanese engagement in Pearl Harbor. The reason provided for this was the protection of the Japanese, but it was equally because Americas were afraid of the Japanese. For the most part, inhabitants of these internment camps were not purposely mistreated (as was the case in the concentration camps in Germany), but they were given very little time to evacuate their homes, and "internment" life was extremely hard for them. They were, for all intents and purposes, prisoners. I personally see this act as far worse than anything Guantanamo has to offer. Families were separated. The belongings they were allowed to carry with them were few. And you can only imagine what happened to anything they had to leave behind.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I refer you to article 4.A.2.a on the distict uniform requirement. Specifically states 'That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance'

Well, I would refer you to article 44 (paragraphs 3-5) of Protocol I. Basically, it states that a combatant only has to be identifiable as a combatant while actively engaged in an attack. Further, paragraph 4 states:

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

Now, the interesting thing here is that the USA (along with Israel, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq) hasn't actually ratified Protocol I. This leads to the interesting claim that a country can only be guilty of war crimes if it has signed a treaty agreeing not to commit war crimes. Sort of like if someone could only be guilty of murder if they had signed a contract agreeing not to commit murder.

The thing is, probably most of the detainees at Guantanamo are not members of militaries that are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. So if you follow the USA logic that non-signatories are not bound by the Geneva Conventions then it is impossible for most of the Guantanamo detainees to be guilty of war crimes.

What the Bush administration seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. The Bush administration wants the Guantanamo detainees to fall under the Geneva Conventions when it comes to detainee deviation from the Geneva Conventions (the USA wants to prosecute the detainees for war crimes) but not when it comes to the USA's own deviations from the Geneva Conventions.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[GreyPoopon]

Try answering his allegation that Guantanamo Bay is a concentration camp -- let's see how the real questions face up to scrutiny?

I actually already answered that in another post. Bottom line: Guantanamo Bay is definitely not the same as a WWII-style concentration camp (although it _may_ qualify for meeting the standard definition for concentration camp), but it bears some disturbing similarities that should not be ignored. Most importantly, the lack of any due process to determine guilt or innocence, and the failure to provide any expected timeframe for incarceration.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[MadJo]

Okay which is it.
A) "These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply."
or
B) "These guys aren't criminals, they are soldiers in a new kind of war."

Either they are soldiers and the Geneva Convention applies, or they aren't. Can't be both.

And every person (read that again: *every*) is entitled to hear why they are being imprisoned and have the option to appeal. The people in the Guantanamo Bay prison often have had neither.
And yes these people can be treated like any other person, including this little line: "Innocent until proven guilty", have you seen proof that the people right now in the Guantanamo Bay prison are guilty? I thought not.

The 'western' civilization used to be civilized and not barbaric. Guess that's not true anymore?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[BagMan2]

I doubt every German we threw in prison voted for Hitler either. Unlike criminal law, when you are at war by nature you are going to be far less selective about who you put in prison and who you don't. It's the nature of the beast.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[BagMan2]

When the guy is firing a gun at our soldiers and we take him prisoner, I am not inclined to give the guy a trial by jury. This isn't a criminal matter, why do you insist on treating it as such? You can't win a war if you have hold a trial before you fire any bullets lest you accidentally hit the wrong person. Personally, I am fine with their current designation as unlawful enemy combatants. The extent of the proof I need is they were captured hanging around with guys who had guns firing at American soldiers, and I'll just take the American soldiers word for it. We do not owe a foreign enemy entity the same legal rights that are afforded to us by our constitution. It has never been that way and it shouldn't be that way. We do own them humane treatment during their imprisonment and nothing more.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[ahabswhale]

You need to read more carefully. I'm not saying those people deserve to be there. I don't know if they do. I'm simply saying that your statement that they can only detain and abuse non U.S. citizens is simply incorrect. Being a citizen does NOT protect you from being detained or abused for the duration of the "war on terrorism" which could be forever.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Sique]

This was just an answer to the posting before, where the author claimed that it is possible to detain and abuse them, because they are non-U.S.-citizens and thus don't have rights under the U.S. constitution.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[FleaPlus]

It's curious how the Washington Post article doesn't mention any of the following regarding Gholam Ruhani:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gholam_Ruhani#Administrative_Review_Board_hearing

The following primary factors favor continued detention:

        a. Commitment

              1. Detainee admitted being a member of the Taliban. A supervisor of Taliban Civilian Intelligence recruited the detainee into the Taliban.
              2. Detainee served as the driver for a Taliban Intelligence Service member and performed clerical work for the Intelligence Service in Kabul, AF, from 1999 or 2000 until his capture by U.S. forces in December of 2001. The detainee was required to carry a pistol in this job.
              3. Detainee was captured with a senior Taliban intelligence member, Abdul Haq Wasiq, by U.S. forces on 9 December of 2001. The detainee was in possession of 7.62MM [sic] rounds when captured.
              4. During confinement the detainee has made death threates to guards.

        b. Connections / Associations

              1. For years the detainee worked for the Taliban in the Operations Department of the Ministry of Intelligence in Kabul. The detainee supervised several associates.
              2. The detainee and his 13-14 associated were members of a quasi-police organization affiliated with Taliban Internal Affairs. The detainee and others in the unit were armed.
              3. The detainee's sister is married to a Taliban Intelligence Officer.
              4. The Taliban Chief of Intelligence led a group of 600 to 700 armed Taliban fighters in an Afghan province.
              5. The detainee couriered a letter between the Taliban Chief of Intelligence and a Taliban military commander.
              6. The Taliban military commander is associated with Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG). The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Terrorist Organization Reference Guide, states that HIG has long established ties with Usama Bin Laden [sic] and has staged attacks in attempts to force United States troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

        c. Intent

                After the fall of Kabul the detainee and his associated fled the city in a pick-up truck armed with two RPG-7's [sic], twenty AK-47's [sic] and two PK machine guns.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[FleaPlus]

> Run that by me again... where in the Constitution, or any of it's amendments does it claim that the rights are only for citizens.

Ah, so in that case is it unconstitutional for the U.S. to spy on foreign countries?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[FleaPlus]

> Two guys were just cartoonists who made fun of their local government! But it took over a year at least for them to be released.

Citation?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[aevans]

Your suggestion is that a smaller minority party that allies with a larger minority party in order to achieve a majory should be in control?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[aevans]

What services do they have rights to which their access is inadequate?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[aevans]

What was the final count he came up with for Sodom? for Gomorrah?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[jdjbuffalo]

Wow! Excellent post. I wish you were logged in so that I could friend you.

Thanks for the insightful post.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[GaryPatterson]

I wonder what sort of stories we'll be reading in another ten years that would shock us now but will seem like regular occurrences in 2017? Thoughtcrime executions, archived recording of all telephone calls (the European Union is already working on this!), incarcerating people because they have the "genes" of a potential psychopath (again, the EU is looking into this)? It's gunna happen and we'll just keep boiling like the frogs we are.

I don't accept for a second these stories about what the EU is doing. I've seen stories about the EU that were shown to be made up before, and I reckon I'm looking at two more now.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[jdjbuffalo]

Our values are tested not when times are easy, for that is something that anyone or nation can do.
They are tested when times are hard, when you have to stand your ground despite the short term consequences.
Those who would give up their values when times are tough never really ascribed to them in the first place.
Those people don't deserve their rights that have been fought for;
for they would give it away so easily that the values themselves are meaningless.
Oh! How contemptible those people are.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[ross.w]

The Germans got to go home after the war was over (OK not immediately, but soon after)

How will we know when the "war on terror" is over?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers. Charges. Evidence. Red Cross access. Just for starters.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[MadJo]

Do you have proof that each and evey person incarcerated in "gitmo" actually fired a gun at your troops? No, you don't!
You haven't seen any proof, about any of these guys. Just hearsay.

If you are under fire, during a war you can fight back, but if you then captured that person, you damn well present him in a court of law. Otherwise you'd be no better than 'the enemy' you are combatting.

"We do not owe a foreign enemy entity the same legal rights that are afforded to us by our constitution."
And why not? Where in the constitution does it say: "Oh and btw, these rules are only applicable if you are an American"? It doesn't, and you know why? Because the lot of you were immigrants at the time of that writing. None of you are indigenous to the United States (aside from the 'native Americans').

"It has never been that way and it shouldn't be that way. We do own them humane treatment during their imprisonment and nothing more."
You owe them the same rules and duties as you do to everyone else.
I'd love to see some American (for instance someone from Blackwater) being put in jail over there in Iraq, and not have a fair trial (or any trial for that matter). We'd hear no end of 'invasion' and 'clearly a breach of the Geneva convention' and 'crying foul'. Then why is this any different?

Be happy in your boiling water... I will have none of it.

(btw, did you know that we have a court of law for war crimes like you described? It's in a city in my country... Namely in the city called 'The Hague')

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[krunk7]

It's gunna happen and we'll just keep boiling like the frogs we are.

A little off topic, but the boiling frog story is actually a myth: boiling frog.

Interestingly enough, this sort of behavior is more often seen in warm blooded animals. Amphibians rely on external temp variation to regulate body temp. Thus they are very sensitive to those changes. Mammals, on the other hand, self regulate. This leads to a bit less sensitivity to minor changes in the environment (since we have no need to be aware of that).

So, in short, it's humans that are much more likely to tolerate gradual changes until they become detrimental to our health rather then our very sensitive friends the frog. :)

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[couchslug]

"These guys aren't criminals, they are soldiers in a new kind of war"

They aren't "soldiers", they are combatants, and the sort of war they are fighting is not new.
The rules of war exist for good reason, and if they fail to obey them, (to borrow a phrase from another war)
"sorry 'bout that".

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[GaryPatterson]

We could shoot these people in the field. No muss no fuss. These things happen in war. Innocent people die.

Nice. Shoot suspects without trial. You do know that many of the people captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay weren't captured on the field of battle, don't you? So you're saying your soldiers could just execute potentially innocent people without trial.

Lots of people at GB have since been released without trial. The first and most serious trial of these "worst of the worst" (as so many politicians have damned them) resulted in a slap on the wrist sentence of nine months for the hideous crime of guarding a tank. And Mr Hicks was sent back to Australia under a gag order to keep quiet until 2008 (after the Australian elections). He wasn't captured on a battlefield though, but turned in for bounty money like many other prisoners at GB.

Many report torture and renditions to other nations (such as Egypt) where they were tortured. Then they were released, as there was either no evidence or they were innocent anyway.

Refraining from executing the innocent is not the act of a "damn great people." It's the minimum standard that can be expected of anyone above the level of total barbarism. Is that, then, your point? That you're not utterly barbaric?

I expected more.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[MadJo]

"Not that I disagree with you.. but I wouldn't say some of these people had many rights to begin with living under the Taliban rule."
Sure, and let's just keep it that way, shall we. Let the unwashed people from the Taliban enjoy 'our American hospitality' in Guantanamo Bay prison

If you do that, you're no better than the Taliban.
The US used to be a dream. Right now, it's more like a nightmare. And more often the word "American" is uttered in disgust.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[nickos]

I'm saying that a system where you can vote for whatever party you like and your vote matters is better than the current system. It may have some disadvantages, but it's surely more democratic.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[MadJo]

Are you barbarians? I didn't think so. Give these prisoners of war as you call them access to at least a lawyer, and give them their human rights.
Yes, you can incarcerate people. Nowhere did I imply that you couldn't, but not indefinitely, and without any charges. Let the charges be known, and give those detainees a chance at a fair trial.
(Ever watched 'a thin red line'? with Richard Gere as a prisoner in China? Did you feel outraged because of the injustice there? Is America as bad as China as far as human rights go? Or even worse?)

Habeas Corpus doesn't apply according to the Bush administration, they removed that right from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison earlier this year.
A validation system based on it, basically a washed out version of it, is not sufficient in my eyes.

If they are there with just cause, why not also put these people on trial, and come forward with proof.

That naval base just happened to be on Cuba, right?

I choose to fight infringes on basic human rights, that's my choice. And Gitmo is a jet black page in the US history.

Let us not speak of the secret CIA prisons scattered over Europe.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[aevans]

To who?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Maxmin]

Yes. but the term was coined by the British during the late 19th century. Came to prominent usage during the Second Boer War in South Africa, according to several sources.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Stormcrow309]

Civilians personnel operating with a military are at least required to have an id card showing the relationship. The spontaneous take of arms must still follow 4.A.2. The statement of convention 3 article 5 is if any doubt exsists. However, who determines the doubt would be detaining power. Unless the detaining power has ratified protocal I, which is an addenda to the GC, then the detaining power can determine whether to apply convention 4 article 5 or article 42. Considering the significant issue that is caused when a beligerent misrepresents themself as a member of the civilian populace, I don't see the issue of withholding GC rights from someone who misrepresents themself as a civilian because it leads to civilians being shot. As for security reasons, all it takes is considering the issues caused by a detainee telling his buddy about the informant that ratted to create a security reason.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Stormcrow309]

Protocal I is not ratified by the US. Technically, we are following the Geneva Conventions but not Protocal I. I agree with the major issue, which is people using the mask of being a civilian to attack their enemy, causing accidents where civilians get killed due to soldiers making mistakes. Heck, at least the VC tended to wear black uniforms.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[MattskEE]

Well said sir, well said. I only hope the people who disagree with this point of view read your post.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Before spouting off, RTF Constitution!

Yes, please do. Where in the Constitution does it even hint at applying to enemy combatants during a time of war? Doesn't does it? The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Next red herring please.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[jhol13]

I'll just take the American soldiers word for it Abu Ghraib.

We do own them humane treatment during their imprisonment and nothing more. So why don't you give them one? Show me one good reason why Geneva conventions should not be applied.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[o'reor]

Enemy combatants that are not wearing a uniform

Well, lemme see, it's dressed as a civilian, it behaves like a (panicked) civilian, it lives where civilians usually live, but... it's an enemy combatant. Says who ?

3 out of 4 of the people you rounded up and sent to Gitmo are not enemy combatants at all.

Only 8 percent were characterised in the government documents as Al Qaeda fighters and 16 percent as Taliban fighters, the report said.

And all the rest are, hmmm, spies ? Enemy combatants ?

Or maybe just people that happened to be at the wrong time in the wrong place ?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[aminorex]

This is called limited hang-out. By labelling this incident as "fake news", they have defined everything else as "real news", despite the fact that it is constructed by establishment operatives for propaganda purposes, to control the populace, and contains much more disinformation and psychological conditioning than actual reportage. See Carl Bernstein's excellent, if limited, work on the CIA's Operation Mockingbird for a starting point on this.

During the final invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. Army killed more journalists per day than any army in history. If you weren't "embedded", you were deemed to be an "enemy combatant" -- and since you weren't in uniform, an unlawful one. The US has Pultizer prize-winning Associated Press photographers, Reuter's correspondents, etc., in various Iraqi and secret prisons around the world today, because of the Army policy of "full-spectrum dominance", which includes "information dominance" as well as traditional notions of force dominance.

Similar doctrines are being applied within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Journalists who expose criminal operations of the intelligence community, for example, are frequently found to have committed suicide, or die in airline accidents. Another group being disproportionately targeted for summary execution is microbiologists. Next to journalism, microbiology is one of the most dangerous professions on earth. This is because microbiology is a threat to the plan for global depopulation using racially targetted microbial agents. Another very dangerous profession is U.S. soldier. Lots of "suicides" there. About 120 per week for the last three years. For example, Ciara Durkin, who was found with a bullet in her head in a secured area of Bagram air base, and called her family the week before to warn them that something might happen to her. She was a procurement officer. Many thousands of "suicided" soldiers every year.

Don't believe me. Look it up.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[o'reor]

Gotta love that British humour of yours... ;-)

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Peter Cooper]

You're probably right. It's most likely just the reality of 24/7 news, mass communication, and the ability to get news about things that, previously, would never have either been discovered or were deliberately held back from the presses.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[BagMan2]

Most aspects of the Geneva convention should be followed, but some of them don't apply because these guys are not part of a state. Geneva conventions only allow us to do things like ask for Name, Rank, and Serial Number, which makes no sense in this case. We need to get more out of these guys than that.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[kyofunikushimi]

It's less of a stretch to compare 'Nazi Death Camps' to 'Concentration Camps' then to compare Gitmo to 'Concentration Camps'.

Is it a stretch at all? Like it or not, there IS a definition of 'Concentration Camp'. And according to that definition, both the Nazi Death Camps and Gitmo qualify as such. If you disagree with the definition, well... that's your prerogative. But the definition exists and it is certainly worthy of mention in an academic discussion.

Less then 300 prisoners, not much of a concentration. Maybe we should call Guiness and tell them we've found the world's smallest 'Concentration Camp'. Also the most hospitable.

Actually, it looks like 'Tin Town' might have Gitmo beat on both counts.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Kymermosst]

Interesting point. It's not clear whether it is any case, or just case where the US service personnel are the accused. Definitely something for the courts.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Cerebus]

There's this website called www.google.com that offers this neat service. If you enter some words it will search a really really large database of information found online and point you toward the pages that seem to be relevant to the words you entered.

Maybe you could use it to, you know, answer your own question. And maybe, just maybe, become a little informed as a byproduct.

I know it's a novel idea, but somehow I think you'll understand more that way than if I did it for you.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

he won't bother so here's a link

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[sjames]

True, but if they are NOT military (and thus not protected by the Geneva convntion) then they are civillians and so are protected by the Constitution. The Bush administration would have us believe that they are some sort of not civillian but not military at the same time and have no rights at all, but neither Geneva nor Constitution would allow for such a status.

Troops stationed in Guantanamo should probably consider carefully the possability that they are following illegal orders and so could be held personally criminally liable for their actions.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[jhol13]

What more you need from them and why? By what means you should get the information, is torture allowed?

Why is the Red Cross or anybody else not allowed to see the prisoners? Why is the list of the prisoners names given, even after this many years?

I think you are just trying to weasel out.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Copid]

Trials are for criminals. These guys aren't criminals, they are soldiers in a new kind of war. I don't recall putting all the German soldiers that were captured on trial before tossing them in prisoner camps. The only difference here is that the enemy is not represented by a well defined country, but rather a more loosely defined movement.

So when does this "war" we've declared end? Do we keep all combatants, regardless of affiliation, in the hole until there's nobody anywhere in the world who might commit a terrorist act against us? If you don't have an enemy that you can define or a way of describing victory, you don't really have much of a war. You have something that more closely resembles an ongoing law enforcement issue.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Copid]

When the guy is firing a gun at our soldiers and we take him prisoner, I am not inclined to give the guy a trial by jury.

What about when the guy is turned in by a bounty hunter (who promptly disappears) for a $5000 reward with no evidence other than his say so? Is he really a bad guy? Was he just a sap who got picked up for $5000? Did he piss of a warlord somewhere? Should we shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

The extent of the proof I need is they were captured hanging around with guys who had guns firing at American soldiers, and I'll just take the American soldiers word for it.

Well, that covers about 5% of them. I'm happy to give the US forces the benefit of the doubt on those cases. What about the 95% or so who were picked up by Northern Alliance, Pakistani Intelligence, and "other" who may or may not have any witnesses or evidence against them?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Copid]

Try listening to this program. Chase down the Seton Hall studies too. They're good reading. I highly recommend "A profile of 517 Detainees through Department of Defense Data" for a high level overview.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Stormcrow309]

Actually, if they are belligerent civilians, then your premise does hold water, since the Geneva Convention covers that situation. In addition, the Constitution only protects US citizens, unless the Supreme Court interprets it differently. This is especially pertinent due to Amendment 14. Furthermore, US Civilians in a foreign battlefield acting as a belligerent opposing the US Military might fall under the UCMJ, which would pretty much make their life suck. There is a lot of questions on that application of legal theory, but it hasn't been tested in court.

You are technically correct that a member of the United States Military can be held liable for following an illegal order. This is covered in basic training. However, by the laws of war, considering we haven't signed Protocal I, the guard at Guantanamo are unlikely following illegal orders. As long as a guard is not participating in torture, then they cannot be held liable. The commanding officer could be if there is actual torture happening at Guantanamo and it follows the de jure provisions of command responsibility. However, it is unlikely that such actions would happen at Guantanamo due to its awareness. The US's habit, as shown in WWII, is to bring someone to a 'black site' for such action, which would make the commanding officer not liable. Further more, extraordinary rendition makes the resposibility even more complex, since most of the torture would be likely carried out by people outside the US command structure.

With all of that said, I would like to remind people that there is a correllation between the personnal cost to a terrorist and their actions. The higher they believe they will suffer, the lower the incentive to perform a terrorist act. The safest Israel has been from acts of terrorism, is when they made punishment for terrorist acts so draconian. In the 70s, West Germany lowered the incidents of planes being hijacked by meeting each international flight with two tanks. The message is clear, there is a high personnal cost to terrorism. This is what is so troublesome about suicide terrorism. The personnal cost is subsummed within the act.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[sjames]

Actually, all but a very few provisions in the Constitution apply to the federal and/or state government's treatment of any human being. The exceptions are in areas of the right to vote or hold public office.

It is worth noting that in addition to potential war crimes charges, a guard or officer at Guantanamo could also run afoul of U.S. law. Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, etc. While unlikely under the Bush administration, he is not long for office. All it would take is a single incident resulting in public outcry or for prosecution to become politically expediant for Bush's successor (or even for Bush. I swear the man would sell the whole country into slavery for a dollar if he could get away with it. He certainly is NOT above selling someone who helped him up the river.).

As to "extraordinary rendition", U.S. legal principles are clear that if you take an otherwise legal action knowing it will result in a crime, then you are yourself guilty of that crime. So, a U.S. citizen handing someone over to others for the purpose of having them tortured makes that citizen personally guilty of torture. Lack of jurisdiction over the actual torturers does not in any way absolve the citizen of the crime. It makes prosecution harder since the knowing part has to be proven, but it does not negate the crime.

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[Stormcrow309]

First off, the Constitution actually enumerates what the Government cannot due to a US citizen, such as unlawful search. It covers a lot on the treatment of US Citizens.

Second, the charges you mention are actually impossible if the officer or guard is acting in an official capacity, since they have legal authority to hold prisoners via US law. In addition, the expectation test in assault becomes difficult. What is the expectation of treatment of a belligerent non-us citizen captured and held by the US Military? The answer to this fundamental evaluative question, I would assume pretty damd low.

The extraordinary rendition argument might hold against the CIA, but considering the protections the Virginia Farm boys seem to be able to scrounge up, I doubt it will come to light. Consider the fact of the CIA's history. However, let me propose this to you, does the US have an obligation to withhold a non-us citizen from a foreign country that they might be tortured or put to death?

Re:We're all boiling frogs

[sjames]

First off, the Constitution actually enumerates what the Government cannot due to a US citizen, such as unlawful search. It covers a lot on the treatment of US Citizens.

Most of those restrictions apply to all people, not just Citizens.

Second, the charges you mention are actually impossible if the officer or guard is acting in an official capacity, since they have legal authority to hold prisoners via US law. In addition, the expectation test in assault becomes difficult. What is the expectation of treatment of a belligerent non-us citizen captured and held by the US Military? The answer to this fundamental evaluative question, I would assume pretty damd low.

They have legal authority to hold prisoners only under specific conditions. If they go outside those conditions, the authority is non-existant and IN THEORY it becomes a crime.

Expectation doesn't work that way. The prisoners have the expectation to be treated as either civillians or as POWs. The U.S. has laws to cover the civillian case and the Geneva Convention covers the POW case. Just because the executive branch and military have illegally ignored all of that does not remove that legal expectation.

Note that none of that guarantees that anything will be done. So far Congress and the Supreme Court have both failed in their duty to act as checks and balances in this matter. They may never act in spite of a duty to do so. If they do act, the guards themselves might find that they are scapegoats while the people who gave the illegal orders in the first place all develop a convieniant case of highly selective amnesia (with or without early retirement) and the DOJ develops 'higher priorities'.

MP changed to guard, one example

[spazmolytic666]

c. Utilize six MPs, including one MP with a shotgun, per detainee bus.

is now

c. Utilize six guards, including one guard with a shotgun, per detainee bus.

Every instance of MP was changed to "guard". I guess it sounds more friendly.

Re:MP changed to guard, one example

[sqrt(2)]

Since they're not specifically Military Police now, maybe we're going to start using private contractors for guards, a la Blackwater.

Re:MP changed to guard, one example

[WindBourne]

Or the guards have changed. Private contractors?

Re:MP changed to guard, one example

[Ghubi]

Or maybe they're not specifically Military Police now, maybe we're going to start tasking regular soldiers with guard duty, a la 11B.

Re:MP changed to guard, one example

[sqrt(2)]

The MPs were created specifically to perform these types of missions and duties. Regular infantrymen aren't supposed to be doing this job, and they're not trained for it either.

Re:MP changed to guard, one example

[Lars T.]

Since they're not specifically Military Police now, maybe we're going to start using private contractors for guards, a la Blackwater. Does that mean people who can neither be court-martialed (because they are not military personnel) nor tried by a regular US court (because they act on a military base) for whatever they do there?

Re:MP changed to guard, one example

[Deadstick]

I'll bet the Man With No Eyes would consider an offer, Luke...

rj

prohibited!

[icepick72]

exercise as punishment is prohibited.

Ah, ya, really damning evidence. I mean, do they not have to eat their broccoli either as "punishment".

Re:prohibited!

[LWATCDR]

"exercise as punishment is prohibited."
  Okay do 500 pushups and tell me that isn't punishment. Run 20 miles with no water and tell me that isn't punishment.

Actually excessive exercise is a pretty effective form of torture. There is a line between torture and punishment. Three days in solitary confinement is a punishment. Six years could be torture. Being given 20 push ups to do is punishment for a solder. two hundred ...
For the average Slashdot reader two push ups might be a violation of their human rights :)
I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.

Re:prohibited!

[Jason Levine]

A friend of mine surprised me by actually trying to argue that we shouldn't prohibit torture as it would "limit our options" when it came to interrogating prisoners. All of my reasoning about how torture gives unreliable information was greeted with "Well, you weren't tortured, so you don't know." Then it struck me. *He* was never tortured either. I pointed out this inconsistency in his argument to him, and told him that I would defer to someone who was tortured for advice. John McCain was tortured as a soldier and is now strongly against the use of torture. That's good enough for me. (Even though I disagree with him on other points and probably wouldn't vote for him, I respect and admire his stance on torture.)

Re:prohibited!

[phobos13013]

Its a good thing the phrase "exercise as punishment is prohibited" means ITS NOT ALLOWED!

Re:prohibited!

[snl2587]

I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.

Anyone else spot what should be wrong about this statement?

Re:prohibited!

[Anonymous Coward]

For the average Slashdot reader two push ups might be a violation of their human rights :) Oh, ahahahahaha YOU'RE SO FUNNY.

We had a poll. Most of us could do at least 20.

Re:prohibited!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just did 28 pushups in a minute.

Re:prohibited!

[fotbr]

You're probably confusing "conservative" with "neocon" or "republican".

Easy mistake to make, but annoying for those of us who were unable to stop the neocon take over the republican party.

Likewise, I'd imagine its annoying for old-school democrats to watch the moveon.org types hijack their party and try to take it to the other extreme.

Sigh.

Re:prohibited!

[halivar]

Girly push-ups don't count. Knees off the floor!

Re:prohibited!

[rock_climbing_guy]

I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.

Anyone else spot what should be wrong about this statement?

Well, sir, at first I thought that you were pointing out it's silly to assume that a 'conservative' thinks torture is righteous, but then I came to my senses and remembered that conservatives, Bush and Cheney in particular are Satan incarnate and want as many people tortured as possible.

Hows That Impeachment Coming Along Y'all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh.

If you want to diff it..

[Anonymous Coward]

How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html

Re:If you want to diff it..

[scubamage]

Actually they're two fundamentally different things. The manual you posted is a guide to field operations, and some tactics. Basically its nothing that would seem out of place in a classroom in West Point (not surprising considering a number of the "terrorists" we're fighting were either trained in Europe, or the United States School of Americas).

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah.. you're right.. here's their prisoner treatment manual..

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

That's better.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[UltraAyla]

Interesting as a comparison tool, but just remember when reading this that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I'm not sure that this parent was suggesting anything that needs this response, but I think it's an important consideration regardless.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, I'm really tired of people claiming the US is equivalent to terrorists.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[scubamage]

And what makes you think we do anything different in our undisclosed prisons and torture chambers in Turkey, Pakistan, and numerous other nations? You do realize that there have been leaked special forces interrogation manuals detailing how to remove skin from the chest, exposing nerve endings which can be manipulated via medical implements, fire, etc, to cause mind numbing pain?

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Clandestine_Blaze]

How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html How's about comparing it to the Geneva Conventions ?

(And before anyone says "But that only applies to Prisoners of War, not enemy combatants"...I know, but the enemy combatant designation was made to circumvent international law, so my point still stands.)

I know what you're getting at, but why compare apples to oranges? We're not al-Qaeda and the set of morals that we operate under must be different than theirs if we want to succeed. The wrong approach is to say "They're worse so we can do whatever we want." Furthermore, not every individual that has been taken into Guantanamo Bay has been proven guilty and very few of them have even seen an actual military tribunal. Others have been released after three to five years and will never know why they were there to begin with.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Alsee]

mind numbing pain

No, there's a whole chapter on how to avoid that.

Score +1 disturbingly insightful.

-

Re:If you want to diff it..

[2short]

That's fine if you are content knowing that the conduct of the United States isn't any worse than that of al Quaeda.

Some have higher standards.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Chode2235]

Links please, I have not heard of this?

Re:If you want to diff it..

[mapkinase]

The article says it was a safe-house of Al-Qaeda, but did not present any proof of that.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[mapkinase]

The parent provided wrong link. It should be moderated down as off-topic.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the sort of clue Scooby-Doo would find.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[scubamage]

On US Interrogation (sadly I cannot find the SF field manual): http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18779prs20041207.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/torture_as_an_interrogation_te.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/washington/16cnd-formica.html http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305I.shtml http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1227&id=893492006 On the US School of Americas: http://www.soaw.org/ On Secret US Prisons: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1237589,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4461470.stm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/19/afghan12319.htm http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22567 Now why is this important? Since the US keeps these prisons in secret locations which are never disclosed, the international red cross is never permitted to inspect them. Therefore, any sort of interrogation and torture technique used is carte blanche.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[flyingsquid]

How's about comparing it to al Qaeda's manual?

Generally speaking, if the only way you can defend yourself is to say "we're not the other guy" and the other guy is a bunch of murderous zealots who blow up women and children with car bombs, chop off heads on live TV, and want to return the Middle East to the Middle Ages, you're doing something wrong. It's sort of an inverse Godwin's Law: usually Godwin's Law is invoked when someone is compared to Hitler or the Nazis. Here we're saying we're not Hitler or the Nazis... well, if you have to compare yourself to someone absolutely monstrous to make yourself look moral and reasonable, you're probably not behaving in a moral fashion. Probably not even close.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[greengrocer]

How about comparing that to the terror campaign proposal of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer--The Operation Northwoods proposal to Secretary of Defense Scott McNamara in 1962:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

"In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"--Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro.
The proposals included:
Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming them on Cuban forces.
Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba--reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using an unmanned ship and fake funerals instead.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]"

Re:If you want to diff it..

[Anonymous Coward]

The diff there would be to military procedures for operations in Iraq.

Like when our fine military men call in "air support" to take care of some attackers even when they know it will kill dozens (if not more) of innocent people.

There are 80,000 Iraqi deaths that are directly documentable via multiple separate sources. There are about a half a million Iraqi deaths that were caused by American military actions. There are millions of innocent Iraqis who were forced to abandon their homes and businesses to flee for safety.

And yet some idiots still think the United States are the good guys. The US had good guy status on 9/11. They blew it. The US has successfully out-evil-ed evil. Bin Laden won, because you did his job for him.

  Every western country has had an occasional terrorist, even Belgium. The US has gone to great lengths to ignore all available historical lessons and maximize the fuckup.

Congratulations idiots, you're the new Nazis. Enjoy your downfall.

Re:If you want to diff it..

[darkmeridian]

Well, that's a good point if you want to take your cues on good behavior from Islamic terrorists. If we do this, we can say "We're better than the head-cutters" but we can't say "We're a free country" or "We have civil rights" or "The Terrorists Hate Our Freedom!" Not hypocritically, anyway.

Who Writes this CRAP in the First Place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who writes this CRAP? Is this some Officer with nothing better to do with his/her time, or have the politician/lawyer been assigned to spew this out?

Re:Who Writes this CRAP in the First Place?

[happyemoticon]

The military isn't just a fighting force, it's a gigantic bureaucracy - one famous for having rules and procedures spelled out in such painstaking detail that any person with the ability to read can follow them.

Re:Who Writes this CRAP in the First Place?

[techpawn]

All I could think of was a story about Sun Tzu after I saw this.

King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: "I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?" Sun Tzu replied: "You may." Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to women?" The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus: "I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?" The girls replied: Yes. Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left hand. When I say "Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say "About turn," you must face right round towards your back." Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame." So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers." So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: "We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If we are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded." Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept." Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through all the evolution, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound.

So yeah, even back in the early days they where strict and very anal about procedure...

Re:Who Writes this CRAP in the First Place?

[Anonymous Coward]

| "We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If we are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded." Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept." Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. |

A perfect example of a military commander being out of control and ignoring the wishes of his King /Emperor/Leader.

(In modern terms also guilty of crimes against humanity, remember Patton just slapped a GI he didn't behead or torture him and almost got drummed out of the army. Today it is War Crimes and Torture, and the echoes of Nuremburg still ring true.)

Re:Who Writes this CRAP in the First Place?

[techpawn]

A perfect example of a military commander being out of control and ignoring the wishes of his King /Emperor/Leader.

It was also one of Sun Tzu's Teachings that the leader deals with matters of state such as when to call the army into action but does not tell the army what to do. The idea is that the leader of the nation should leave the battle field to the generals. He should leave diplomacy to his diplomats. That the people that he governs should be his first and last concern and to leave the wars to the people they have placed around them to handle those situations because he should be and during the course of battle will be too far removed (physically and mentally) to be of any real assistance to those battles.

I forget the exact quote but the art of war that explicitly says that when the king gets directly involved it can only lead to disruptions and defeat. If you've never read it, I highly recommend it especially the correlations that can be drawn between it and the Iraq war in the first 4 chapters.

Diff knows many things.

[Selfbain]

diff oldboss.txt newboss.txt | wc -l
0

Re:Diff knows many things.

[rootofevil]

we wont get fooled again!

Re:Diff knows many things.

[Kymermosst]

Way to add a pipe where none is needed.

Try reading about the -q option in diff(1).

Re:Diff knows many things.

[Anonymous Coward]

diff oldboss.txt newboss.txt | watercloset -l Fixed that for you.

Re:Diff knows many things.

[caluml]

Hmm. Learn obscure switches to commands. Or just learn something which you can use with any command? I know what I prefer....

Re:Diff knows many things.

[Kymermosst]

Sorry, one of my many job functions is optimizing shell scripts. I really can't help myself when I spot something like this. Using the pipe causes an extra process to be spawned and that's an expensive operation.

Should this diff be reffered to

[Anonymous Coward]

as the 'Camp Delta delta'?

Re:Should this diff be reffered to

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that mean that some poor SPC or PFC will now have to answer the phone: "Camp Delta Delta Delta, may I help ya help ya help ya?

You can thank me for the earbug later.

[xerxesVII]

When a problem comes along, you must diff it.
I say diff it.
Diff it good.

Changed MPs to Guards

[phoenix.bam!]

This seems to be the scariest change for me. MPs can handle that type of guard duty. Changing all references of MP to Guard means the military can start using either regular enlisted who are not properly trained to run a prison, or hire private contractors to run the prison. We already have private prisons stateside.

Re:Changed MPs to Guards

[Creamsickle]

I welcome the change. Call me cynical, but I just don't have confidence my Member of Parliament would be able to handle the pressure of managing detainees.

Re:Changed MPs to Guards

[Anonymous Coward]

This might have a lot more to do with the designed role of Military Police than the more nefarious insinuation you make.

This is very similar to the difference between a Corrections Officer and a Police Officer.

Re:Changed MPs to Guards

[shomon2]

Yes, not only this, but the private contractors are (AFAIK!) from companies like Serco and Sodexho, multinationals that also run detention camps for asylum seekers here in the UK.

I went to see someone (from an organisation called BID) speak about time spent in various UK detention camps, and he said that by far the best dying breed of camps are the ones where trained prison guards are on duty: they can tell the difference between a family that has endured countless suffering and persecution, and a regular adult criminal, where this is not so obvious to the private staff in the other camps.

He also said the "best" of these private guards, the most ruthless and able to take on the most difficult jobs, are the ones then entrusted with the higher paid role of deportation duties.

I'd have to add to this that of course it's a shocking abuse of human rights to detain children in prisons and detention camps, to inflict what amounts to persecution to people fleeing the same thing, and to subject people to the horror of UK deportation processes (helicopters, armoured vans, heavy police presence - scares the living shit out of the easiest deportation targets - families), but it's already been said here that this doesn't shock anyone anymore. Still I said it, not to shock, to inspire action to stop it.

Ale

ps: I have good reason to expect regular military police to have a hard time handling Guantanamo bay - so this reluctance might be part of the reason for this replacement.

Re:Changed MPs to Guards

[konigstein]

The reason for that change is probably not because they are looking to bring in contractors, but because it is a Joint Task Force, with all branches of the service giving aid. The navy does not have MP's, it has MA's (master at arms). This was probably an innocent rephrasing made so that its more "joint service" friendly, and so an officer could add another bullet on his OER (officer evaluation report, which gets you promoted or damned) that he "aided in the rwritting of a major military document."

Re:Changed MPs to Guards

[ls -la]

Similarly, whenever I read about British MPs, I wonder what the military police are doing passing laws.

Re:Changed MPs to Guards

[GaryPatterson]

Hey, guards worked really well in Abu Ghraib!

Sure, a few suspects got a bit of torture and brought the entire nation of the United States into shame and disrepute through their rank stupidity, but I'm sure it won't happen a second time.

I mean, what are the odds?

come on.

[apodyopsis]

If they are guilty then charge them and let them have their day in court.

If there is no evidence then release them.

But holding them indefinitely on hearsay and suspicion in a legal limbo is madness. The problem will not get easier to deal with the longer you leave it, at some point they will have to be dealt with - so better to get it out of the way now. Confront the problem whatever the cost, return or charge them, and get that embarrassment and shut down.

Re:come on.

[bonkeydcow]

They are not us citizens. They did not rob a starbucks. This is not a court matter. Stop trying to equate war criminals to U.S. citizens. Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says.

Re:come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite easy, actually.

Everybody knows that this concentration camp will have to be closed at some point. After all, as you say, the problem will not go away, and if you keep people to the point where they actually die of natural causes (diseases, old age - not accidents, murder and the like), the problem just will become permanent, because at that point, you'll have forfeited your chance to make it up to them.

The US government knows this, of course, but they don't want to do either: they don't want to release people, and they do not want to keep them incarcerated permanently like this, either, for the above reason.

So what can they do? Well, simple. The republicans know that as soon as a democrat is elected as US president, this concentration camp will sooner or later be shut down: it might not be the first thing that the new prez will do, but it will happen. Now, two things happen:

1) First of all, the republicans won't have to deal with the whole thing anymore. The problem will be solved - the concentration camp simply will not exist anymore. So why won't they do that themselves? Well, simple - they'd lose their face, and they'd be accused of being "soft on terror" by their wingnut voter base. Which brings us to the next thing:

2) The republicans will accuse the democrats of being "soft on terror". So what would otherwise have been a severe blow will turn into a victory for them: their political opponents are forced to do the dirty job for them and rid them (the republicans) of their problems, and in response, the republicans even get to rag on their opponents and demonstrate to their voters that they're hardliners and falcons.

Great plan, isn't it? If you're a republican, that is.

So what can the democrats do? Pretty much nothing, unfortunately. They could refuse to close down the camp, returning the ball to the republicans when there'll be a republican president again, but then the republicans will do the same thing: it'll be a war of attrition, and the republicans will be able to win, because the longer *they* hold out, the more they will be praised by their voters for Protecting America(tm), whereas the longer the *democrats* hold out, the more grumbling there will be among their voters to close down the concentration camp. So the democrats can't win that war of attrition.

The only other thing they could do would be to simply acknowledge that it's all a game they can't win and refuse to play. But that's not going to happen, since the democrats - the actual politicians, not so much the party, that is - would still lose more that way than they otherwise would. After all, if you had the choice between, say, the next president or a nobody that nobody knows or cares about, what would you rather be? Even if you're not going to be the most popular president, even if you'll only serve one term and so on, it'll still mean a huge amount of money (pork), power and influence. The democrats sure aren't going to let that opportunity pass.

What they will do, of course, is try to minimise the damage, so the closing down of the camp will come at a pretty early point - but not so early that it'll look like a hasty decision.

Mark my words: this is how it will happen.

Re:come on.

[greg_barton]

The problem will not get easier to deal with the longer you leave it, at some point they will have to be dealt with - so better to get it out of the way now.

Oh, no. If a Democrat is elected president it becomes extremely easy to deal with. No matter what the new president does, yell as loudly as you can that they're "SOFT ON TERRORISTS!"

Same goes for solving that "Iraq War" problem.

Re:come on.

[rbanffy]

Many of them were apprehended while shooting at US troops. I understand that while, in those situations, collecting forensic evidence can be hard, if a couple soldiers that were exchanging fire with the accused took depositions, there would be enough evidence to pursue a proper trial. That is a huge nuisance in times of war and that's why we have a simplified process in the form of the Geneva Convention

What really bothers me is this legal limbo they are in - being neither civilian criminals that should be properly tried nor enemy soldiers who should be treated in accordance to international treaties. When people start falling through the cracks of a system by the thousands, it's because the system is badly broken.

I am also bothered by what I perceive as an active effort to shove people through those cracks. That makes me believe that those cracks won't be fixed anytime soon.

Re:come on.

[BagMan2]

I think we should just classify them as Prisoners of War, give them full Red Cross priviledges and Geneva Convention rights, and just keep them imprisoned indefinitely until their movement is defeated. You can't let them go. They will go back to where they were and continue attacking American troops again. This is not a criminal matter, this is a matter of war. The enemy is unique in that the have no defined country, so we need to be come up with new classifications to deal with these people. Bottom line, no sane person thinks they should be released just to go back to their terrorist activities.

Re:come on.

[The Rizz]

This is not a court matter. Any situation where the government detains someone is a court matter. Detainment in avoidance of the legal system is, by definition, kidnapping - a federal crime.

Stop trying to equate war criminals to U.S. citizens. Stop trying to equate people detained with no charges brought against them with war criminals. Actual war criminals get trials.

Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says. I suggest you try reading the constitution some time instead of just thinking you know what it doesn't say.

Re:come on.

[2short]

"Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says."

You mean like Amendment V, where it says "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." and makes absolutely no mention of "citizen" at all? Time to take your own advice, bucko.

Re:come on.

[Clandestine_Blaze]

They are not us citizens. They did not rob a starbucks. This is not a court matter. Stop trying to equate war criminals to U.S. citizens. Ah, so since they are not U.S. citizens, they should all be treated as sub-humans and be deprived of basic due process, regardless of their guilt or innocence? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were hauled away under suspicion or anonymous tips, and that not all of them were caught "red handed" - with IEDs and a Jihadist manual?

And why are you suddenly calling them all War Criminals? That designation occurs after a lengthy process.

Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says. You tell us. What does the constitution say?

Interestingly enough, the parent poster never mentioned the constitution. You were the one that brought it up. What the parent was referring to was the fact that all people on this planet, regardless of citizenship, should have very basic rights. And the only way to determine guilt is through a trial with evidence before a jury of peers. Hell, even a military tribunal would be better than just legal limbo.

Anyway, since you brought up the Constitution:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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. I highlighted the word Person. The word person was NOT used by accident or out of convenience. The authors went through great pains to ensure that the word Person was used instead of the word Citizen, if only to avoid individuals such as yourself that believe that only U.S. Citizens have basic rights and nobody else.

Oh and I also italicized the part about the "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" because I know some person is going to say "SEE, the constitution says we can forget about due process in time of War or public danger." Wrong, it doesn't. That sentence refers to the fifth amendment not protecting those serving in the armed forces, which, in 1987, the Supreme Court held that members of the militia may be tried for any offense with indictments.

Reference: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

And also:

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment prevents individuals from being punished without "due process of law." Due process extends to all persons (including non-U.S. citizens) and corporate entities. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly binds the states with due process protections. I don't believe any individual here is against catching dangerous people committed to killing soldiers and civilians, but there needs to be some form of due process. Simply locking them up in a legal black hole and refusing to show any evidence on grounds that it is classified really doesn't seem like the correct approach.

Re:come on.

[sheph]

Ok fine, and I would find myself agreeing with you if it were not for knowing how this actually works in practice. Case in point: in my neighborhood we've got a bunch of morons spray painting all over the place. They hit a wall that belongs to the city every couple of weeks. People's houses, the sidewalk in front of my house, every utility pole on my block, trash cans .... you get the idea. It's starting to look like downtown WATTS in Dullsville, ID. The city comes by cleans it off the wall, homeowners have to remove it from their property at their own expense, and it's an endless cycle. The police know who is doing involved. These bright fools even have their own web sites where they brag about their exploits. But without catching them in the act they have no evidence to charge them with a crime. This has been going on for over a year. Now when it's just spray paint that's one thing, but now a rival gang is starting to swing through, crossing it out and painting their own crap beside or over top of what was there. How long before this little pissing match escallates into drive by shootings where my kids, my wife, or myself wind up dead? How long should law enforcement wait before acting on what they know regardless of the evidence they have? Not to say every person in there is guilty, but usually where there is smoke there is fire. In this given situation we are talking about a little more than spray paint as well. We're talking about guys that are possibly killing multiple members of our military and well as civilians in one fell swoop. What are those lives worth? Yes it's certainly appealing emotionally to just draw a big target on the US Gubement and throw stones, but try backing up and looking at the big picture here.

Re:come on.

[MulluskO]

If they are guilty then charge them and let them have their day in court.

If there is no evidence then release them.

But holding them indefinitely on hearsay and suspicion in a legal limbo is madness. This is sparta.

Re:come on.

[DrVomact]

Many of them were apprehended while shooting at US troops. I understand that while, in those situations, collecting forensic evidence can be hard, if a couple soldiers that were exchanging fire with the accused took depositions, there would be enough evidence to pursue a proper trial. That is a huge nuisance in times of war and that's why we have a simplified process in the form of the Geneva Convention

The Geneva Conventions aren't meant to be a substitute for criminal proceedings...a soldier who shoots at the enemy does not thereby commit a crime. The condition of "legal limbo" has arisen because prisoners taken after the conclusion of "official" hostilities in Iraq and during our Afghan incursion are not part of any state military. Under international law, they're not really soldiers. But, even given that fact, is it necessarily a crime for a denizen of some far-off land to shoot at American soldiers?

It might be profitable to ask by what right do American soldiers shoot at them ? We send our soldiers to far-off countries for reasons that may or may not be good ones, and then the locals shoot at those soldiers. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that their shooting is criminal, but ours is legally justified? What laws are in play here? Does it make a difference that our soldiers wear uniforms and follow orders from Washington? (To put the situation in perspective, you might want to ask yourself what you would do if foreign soldiers—say, a French U.N. force—started patrolling U.S. streets to "keep the peace"?)

I think there's enough moral and legal murkiness to go around. Let's pretend that the people who surrender to our troops after shooting at them are prisoners of war, and treat them as such. As for those not taken prisoner in actual combat, but captured because we suspect them of plotting evil against our native soil, let's put them on trial in the United States, under U.S. law.

I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's the best I can think of.

Re:come on.

[bonkeydcow]

This is not a court matter. Any situation where the government detains someone is a court matter. Detainment in avoidance of the legal system is, by definition, kidnapping - a federal crime. Not when they are captured on the battlefield (especially in a foreign country). The U.S constitution does not provide rights to all people who are not citizens and not on U.S. soil. Point to the section that does... Stop trying to equate war criminals to U.S. citizens. Stop trying to equate people detained with no charges brought against them with war criminals. Actual war criminals get trials. Point to the section of the Geneva convetiontion that says enemies out of uniform are covered under that rule... Try reading the constition some time instead of thinking you know what it says. I suggest you try reading the constitution some time instead of just thinking you know what it doesn't say. Point me to the sections you have invented.

Re:come on.

[rbanffy]

"I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's the best I can think of."

It's a very good one.

Of course, it would be better not to invade the wrong country supported by lousy inteligence, but your idea is a good start.

One day we will all laugh at this.

Re:come on.

[Bios_Hakr]

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here:

1. Neighborhood Watch. Get with all the local residents and come up with a 24*7 schedule of 2-hour shifts. Someone watches for suspicious things at all times. If the see the kids painting, they video it and call the police. They also call everyone else in the chain so that they can record for many different angles.

You could skip the police and just beat the crap out of the kids. YMMV

2. Security cameras. Get together and set up hidden cameras in high-probability areas. Not as good as a real NW, but you might get lucky.

daming to ?. and wikeleaks you mean?

[scrout]

What horseshit, nice titles and such. Please post your damning evidence, why it is damning, and whom it is damning to. There is a new program where you can "bring a Gitmo guy to breakfast", should be popular with the US is bad , buys trying to blow us up good crowd.

Re:daming to ?. and wikeleaks you mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

buys trying to blow us up good crowd.

Any time you want to prove that, feel free to. The military refuses to, the government refuses to, so apparently you have some insider evidence that nobody else has access to that can prove beyond a doubt that the people in prison are terrorists.

Maybe you can post your proof to wikileaks, then we can see if they're biased against the truth or not.

Who, us?

[Tony]

Of *course* we're not equivalent to terrorists.

The terrorists are organized.

*rimshot*

Fris8t psot

[Anonymous Coward]

you'"re toLd. It's

Re:Give them refugee status.

[AxeTheMax]

Well, the US is responsible for their present predicament, so it seems that the answer is that the US should give them political asylum!

Problem solved! Don't forget they may want to bring in their families in as well.

Conservative? LIberal?`

[Tony]

I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.

It's sad that conservatism has fallen into such disrepute. I used to think, "Hey, my conservative friends and I want the same things. We just have different ideas about how to accomplish those things."

Now, all my "conservative" friends are suddenly very liberal. They haven't changed. The terms have changed.

I'm hoping for a fire

[novafluxx]

Lots of people want that base to be closed, or just the detainee section to be closed. I'm all for closing the base... After a freak accident starts a fire that runs out of control so fast the detainees aren't able to be released and all die in the fire :( sad I know... Good news will be all our soldiers and any civilian staff/observers all escape the flames.

Re:I'm hoping for a fire

[sbillard]

Sounds a bit like Waco TX.

Boiling the President Alive

[Anonymous Coward]

>> These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Please stop spreading these lies about this issue, you are undermining the human rights legislation.

US Constitution applies to all people held under US government power. It doesn't matter where they are held, as do the Treaties on Human Rights that USA has signed and ratified.

The fact that americans have tortured hundreds of people to death (US Doctors Faked Death Certificates to Cover Up Homicides by Torture ACLU Autopsy Reports), despite these, is a shame that falls on every american, especially those who spread the above false propaganda rhetoric you posted. It is largely responsible for producing these human rights violations in the first place.

Under USA's own 1996 War Crimes Act, as people have been tortured to death, the people ordering the treatment are subject to receive the death penalty for supreme crimes against humanity.

This includes the US president and Vice President as well as Donald Rumsfeld and other facilitators.

Their crimes include having others Uzbekistani dictator's torturers boil people alive for the CIA.

Americans seriously need to owe up to this behaviour around the world.

Let's review

[argStyopa]

..the "damning" changes.

Policy will now be reviewed every 30 days instead of 120 days.

New rules:
1. Comply with all rules and regulations. You are subject to disciplinary action if you disobey any rule or commit any act, disorder, or neglect that is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
2. You must immediately obey all orders of U.S. personnel. Deliberate disobedience, resistance, or conduct of a mutinous or riotous nature will be dealt with by force. Be respectful of others. Derogatory comments toward camp personnel will not be tolerated.
3. You may not have any articles that can be used as a weapon in your possession at any time. If a weapon is found in your possession, you will be severely punished. Gambling is strictly forbidden.
4. Being truthful and compliance will be rewarded. Failure to comply will result in loss of privileges.
5. All trash will be returned immediately to U.S. personnel when you are finished eating. All eating utensils must be returned after meals.
6. No detainee may conduct or participate in any form of military drill, organized physical fitness, hand-to-hand combat, or martial arts style training.
7. The camp commander will ensure adequate protection for all personnel. Any detainee who mistreats another detainee will be punished. Any detainee that fears his life is in danger, or fears physical injury at the hands of another person can report this to U.S. personnel at any time.
8. Medical emergencies should be brought to the guards' attention immediately. Your decision whether or not to be truthful and comply will directly affect your quality of life while in this camp.

(nothing in there seems particularly onerous. Aside from #2, it wouldn't make a bad set of rules for any school in the US.)

(stopped reading because I have better things to do)
I'd rate this -1, Overrated. It's a bunch of clarifications, seems to me as much for the detainees' benefit as anyone.

Re:Let's review

[Fireye]

You left out;

9. Guards are no longer required to carry human rights cards.
10. MP's are now labeled as Guards.

Item 9 is somewhat outrageous. However, if the staff is briefed on human rights, and is following those requirements, then no biggie.
Item 10 allows the US to more easily staff Guantanamo Bay with outside contractors (Blackwater), or other Military or Civil officers (FBI, military personel who aren't MP's specificly). This is the more questionable change in my mind.

Re:Let's review

[argStyopa]

(shrug) I don't believe that making someone carry a card is going to alter their behavior at all. I suspect that guards in Abu Ghraib would have done what they did regardless of a little card in their pocket.

10 - that IS a more significant difference, and I'm more troubled by your first comparison and the suggestion that it's becoming a perma-camp than anything.

Re:Let's review

[SharpFang]

Personal mail parcels have been added to forbidden materials list.

Re:Let's review

[perrin]

Live without any rights, without any privacy, without anything you can call your own, no hope for release, no way to fight back, with no due process, totally powerless, and absolutely at the mercy of your guards, and you will go mad eventually. There is plenty of reports already that the people held at Gitmo are either gradually losing their sanity, or have already lost it, and who should be surprised? The confinement procedures at Gitmo follow well known brain-washing techniques that we were told the Soviets were using during the Cold War, to demonize them. That the US is now the mirror image of their own anti-Soviet propaganda would be hillarious, if it were not so sad and so outrageous.

Re:Let's review

[Anonymous Coward]

So you really think the same set of rules would be ok in schools too?

1. "You are subject to disciplinary action" - we all know that "disciplinary action" in a high school does not mean the same thing as in a concentration/internment camp.

2. "You must immediately obey all orders of U.S. personnel." - uh yea.. I believe no comment is necessary for this one..

3. "You may not have any articles that can be used as a weapon in your possession at any time." - this is very broad, as almost anything can be used as or made into a weapon. "Gambling is strictly forbidden." - obviously a crowd control measure, but it also means the prisoners are basically not allowed to have any fun, at all.

4. "Failure to comply will result in loss of privileges." stresses point 2 again

5. "All eating utensils must be returned after meals." ok, this may be useful in a place like this, as the simple process of "eating" apparently contradicts point 3. - Wouldn't really care for this rule in a high school though..

6. "No detainee may conduct or participate in any form of .. organized physical fitness.." recaps sub point of 3.: "as our prisoner of choice you are not supposed to be healthy or happy, not even once in a while"

7. "Any detainee that .. fears physical injury at the hands of another person can report this to U.S. personnel at any time." - whether the "U.S. personnel" will do anything is a totally different story. I rather doubt that a report in Arabic or broken English will have any effect whatsoever..

8. "Your decision whether or not to be truthful and comply will directly affect your quality of life while in this camp." - it's it strange that this is mentioned under the same point that mentions "medical emergencies"? Well, on second thought - this is Gitmo.. What is or isn't "truthful" is in the eye of the beholder, so it basically means: "You do and say what we want you to. If you don't, there might be an 'accident' (see also 7.) and medical attention may not be "available" immediately (e.g. to deal with the broken finger or arm - oh they break so easily..)

"..it wouldn't make a bad set of rules for any school in the US" - yea right..

Re:Let's review

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from #2, it wouldn't make a bad set of rules for any school in the US.

Why not decorate the enterance to those schools with the slogan "Arbeit macht frei" and be done with it.

seems to me as much for the detainees' benefit as anyone.

Do you feel the same about the gas chambers in the WWII concentration camps?

Shut It Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shut down Gitmo.

Take all the prisoners out and shoot them like they should have done instead of picking them up.

Re:Shut It Down

[Anonymous Coward]

What, no show trials before you execute them?

Even the commies had show trials first.

Amazing!

[harshmanrob]

It is amazing the US government would publish a manual on renditions. That is the kidnapping and torture of persons because the US government felt like it because everyone is a terrorist now.

New 2004 Edition with Added Typos!

[Firefalcon]

From: "Exceptions may be granted by the JIG Commander for the purpose of interrogations."

To: "The JIG Commander my grant exceptions for the purpose of interrogations."...

(my emphasis)

Not to just be partisan, but...

[damn_registrars]

may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict
What will be the duration of the current "armed conflict"? Even more so, what will be the end of this "armed conflict"? We don't have a defined end game (or any exit strategy) for the conflict that we are in with Al Qaeda. How then could we ever define the duration for which these combatants are held?

I don't expect that anyone here has an answer for these, I just bring it up because it makes it hard to take that definition and those guidelines when we can't really meet the requirement for the "duration of an armed conflict".

Re:Not to just be partisan, but...

[R2.0]

"What will be the duration of the current "armed conflict"? "

Welcome to the problem with the Geneva Conventions - they were written for a different kind of war.

If I had to put an end date to it, I'd say that the "conflict" is ended when the nation from which they were taken is in a position to restrain them from further combat if returned. In specific, send them back to Afghanistan when the government there can guarantee they won't be wielding an AK any more - Taliban eradicated, and control of the whole country. This is in the spirit of the original conventions - soldiers are returned when the war is over and they won't fight anymore.

For insight, look up the concept of "parole" as it pertains to war - POW's can be released if they promise to not engage in combat against the capturing country. If they do, they are not subject to the GC's anymore - at the time the GC's were written, that was understood to mean "shot out of hand for being a saboteur/spy". The idea is that, once a soldier is captured, he should cease to be a threat.

Re:Not to just be partisan, but...

[HTH NE1]

may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict What will be the duration of the current "armed conflict"? Current estimates have it continuing for about 70 years after the last architect of the war is dead.

Though that figure is expected to be periodically revised.

Re:Not to just be partisan, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What will be the duration of the current "armed conflict"? Even more so, what will be the end of this "armed conflict"? We don't have a defined end game (or any exit strategy) for the conflict that we are in with Al Qaeda. How then could we ever define the duration for which these combatants are held?

I don't expect that anyone here has an answer for these, I just bring it up because it makes it hard to take that definition and those guidelines when we can't really meet the requirement for the "duration of an armed conflict".

Most excellent -- you have hit on the nucleus of the discussion -- vague definitions.

To assist in your understanding of the "duration of an armed conflict", I refer you to the congress and president which passed the Son-of-a-bitch Bono "updating" of copyright law, his bequest to the Dicksney Corporation.

The constitution specifies "by securing for limited Times". The congressional and presidential whores sat there with their bare faces hanging out and effectively said, "Life of author plus seventy years is a limit, is it not?"

Yes, so is a thousand years and so is "until the heat death of the universe", but I'm fucking sure that no one but a raging rectum could construe those to be within the spirit of the original intent.

So, to return to the original issue, why would anyone expect these bastards not to make up their own definitions?

It very much reminds me of the practice alleged to have been used by IBM -- if there's a bug in the hardware or software, just document your way out of it instead of fixing it. For instance, if a bug causes 2+2 to return an answer of 5, just add a note saying, "Do not add 2+2."

I saw something encouraging...

[SanityInAnarchy]

While that is pretty damning, that they no longer have to carry a human rights card -- nor is there (at least in the diff) any mention of those particular human rights standing orders...

I am a bit surprised and pleased with this bit:

JTF-GTMO personnel directly working with detainees will avoid handling or touching the detainees Koran whenever possible....

The intent is to deduce if anything may be in the binding without forcing the detainee to expose the binding, which may be construed as culturally insensitive or offensive given the significance of the Koran....

Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.

In fact, if I understand it -- and it is a bit difficult to follow -- it looks as though one major change is, rather than forcing them to all have state-issued Korans, specific to each cell, they are allowed to keep their own (if they have one on arrival), and no matter where it comes from, they get to keep a Koran when they're moved to another cell.

Re:I saw something encouraging...

[Anonymous Coward]

While that is pretty damning, that they no longer have to carry a human rights card

Why is that damning? I'd rather like to think that the troops have had enough human rights training to be able to treat detainees well without having to constantly refer to a pocket reference. :)

Seriously, how it would really make things any better if the guards carried a human rights card around?

What's damning is that Camp Delta exists. Long-term detention without charge is a massive violation of human rights in and of itself. But apart from that one violation, it seems the detainees' rights are being respected to an extraordinary degree. The passage you quoted regarding handling of their Korans is a good example of that; I also notice a change earlier in the document where detainees used not to be permitted a Koran for the first two weeks of their detention, but in the 2004 manual this restriction is removed.

Ironically, while I still strongly oppose the very concept of Camp Delta, this document - far from being damning - has improved my opinion of the way the camp is run. And as a staunch Bush-hater who can't wait for the next President Clinton to take office, I honestly never thought I'd be saying that...

Re:I saw something encouraging...

[KnuthKonrad]

Seriously, how it would really make things any better if the guards carried a human rights card around?

The hold idea behind this is that no one can get away with "I dind't know". Forced to be used and carry such thing makes then either guilty of not having read it or not having followed it. Each way: it's *your* fault. No excuses.

Consider this to be a conclusion of off all those "I was just following orders" excuses.

Downgrade from MPs to GUARDS?

[AtariDatacenter]

I looked at section 3-4 and say that every reference to MPs was replace with guards.

Q: Does this mean that security services can now get involved, like Blackwater?

Re:Downgrade from MPs to GUARDS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it before, and ill say it again. The reason for that change is probably not because they are looking to bring in contractors, but because it is a Joint Task Force, with all branches of the service giving aid. The navy does not have MP's, it has MA's (master at arms). This was probably an innocent rephrasing made so that its more "joint service" friendly, and so an officer could add another bullet on his OER (officer evaluation report, which gets you promoted or damned) that he "aided in the rwritting of a major military document."

Re:Downgrade from MPs to GUARDS?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It could." That certainly makes it something to watch.

Exercise prohibited. Personal mail.

[Web Goddess]

I read part of the diff ~ 20%

Also prohibited: many forms of exercise, including any form of organized exercise, martial arts practice, etc. This would include calisthenics, basketball, and so forth. This effectively denies the prisoners any physical exercise, which is a punishment itself.

Also personal mail has been added to the contraband list.

The camp is run without any oversight whatsoever, even a reality check so simple as guards going home to talk with their kids and sleep with their spouses. They are in an altered universe where the reality is defined by... by nothing but control and dominance.

WAKE UP! Gitmo is so inhumane, it is the worst atrocity of our generation. Anything (legal) I could do to end it, I would do.

Sometimes I feel like France.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'm from Canada. Sometimes I feel like the French must have just before Germany invaded. You know you're outgunned and outnumbered by your obnoxious neighbour, and you know there's nothing you can do about it but hope they aren't going to invade you next.

Nobody's ever gone to war against Canada and won, but we'd surrender pretty quickly if the US decided that we were harbouring terrorists (or oil, fresh drinking water, and uranium). Our military is a right shambles, we don't have nuclear weapons, and we're spread out over the globe trying to clean up the mess our "older brother" keeps making. We wouldn't stand much of a chance.

Most of the world still talks about the loss of Habeas Corpus - you know, the cornerstone of all Common Law since the Brits wrote it down 500 years ago. Just because Faux News only shows reports on whatever the uh... you know, I don't watch it. Anyway, the rest of the world still talks about it.

It's not a war of good and evil. It's a war between Chaos and Law. /May these gates never be closed

Re:Sometimes I feel like France.

[dogbowl]

You must be from Canada if you think France was somehow the underdog before Germany invaded.

Why I hate Colbert...

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's actually hard for me to tell if you actually believe that bullshit, or if it's somehow satire.

And if you do believe it, maybe you should watch the Colbert Report anyway. I bet you wouldn't realize it's a joke.

Re:Why I hate Colbert...

[Deanalator]

It's fun to watch actual interviews of him, where he discusses the purpose behind the colbert character. He says he does not let his kids watch the show because he doesn't want them to get the wrong idea.

Re:Why I hate Colbert...

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

Hell, maybe he'll even invite Colbert to dinner!

Or...kill the wolf.

[maillemaker]

>What do you do when you've managed to grab a a wolf by there ears?

Should killed them to start with. That is certainly the moral that I would take away from the story if I was in charge - next time, don't bother taking prisoners.

Re:Or...kill the wolf.

[Arancaytar]

This sounds uncomfortably close to the Laconia order.

The safety of your armed forces is not worth paying in the human rights of your enemies, especially those of civilians.

Hyperbolye

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with gitmo. But even though I will offer you a bit of advice.

To compare gitmo with a concentration camp, to call gitmo a concentration camp is either showing a profound ignorance of what a concentration camp is, or, a fine example the typical leftwing, hysterical, hyperbole that passes as reasoned discussion.

If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, try sticking to facts instead of going into histrionics.

Re:Hyperbolye

[GreyPoopon]

I don't have a problem with gitmo. But even though I will offer you a bit of advice.

Next time you offer advice, it would be best to avoid posting as an AC. Doing so makes it difficult to have a discussion.

To compare gitmo with a concentration camp, to call gitmo a concentration camp is either showing a profound ignorance of what a concentration camp is, or, a fine example the typical leftwing, hysterical, hyperbole that passes as reasoned discussion.

First off, I lean right, not left. Second off, I don't see Gitmo as a concentration camp. You and I both know that there are huge differences between today's Guantanamo and concentration camps of WWII, most notably the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Guantanamo were rounded up from the battlefield, whereas the vast majority of people in concentration camps in WWII were, well, rounded up from everyday civilian life. The next notable difference is that even though there are efforts at Guantanamo to intimidate and pressure the prisoners into complying and providing intelligence information, they are not in general denied basic necessities of life. The same cannot be said of concentration camps. However the two bear some important similarities that cannot be dismissed, most notably the fact that for those incarcerated there, there is little or no due process involved to determine their guilt or innocence, and little or no indication of how much longer they get to remain there. And I would also not be surprised at all to discover that there are innocent people currently held at Guantanamo. And this is part of what was triggering the poster that I replied to. It's also why I refuse to use terms like "detainees". When you are detained, it's usually for a few hours or a few days -- not years. Guilty or innocent, the people in Guantanamo are prisoners, pure and simple.

If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, try sticking to facts instead of going into histrionics.

All I did was frame my reply in the context of the post to which I was replying, which was the best way to begin a reasonable discussion with somebody who is coming from a different viewpoint as yourself. In the future, if you want to give advice that you want to be taken seriously, I would recommend that you reply to the post that originally started what you consider to be overly dramatic. That way you avoid spoiling what might otherwise turn into a reasoned discussion.

Re:Hyperbolye

[Copid]

...the overwhelming majority of people in Guantanamo were rounded up from the battlefield...

I don't see much evidence to suggest that this is true. According to this breakdown 11% were picked up by the US or coalition forces and 20% were picked up by Northern Alliance and Afghan authorities (bounties were involved, but very little documentation of actual offenses and captors appears to be available). Let's assume for the sake of argument that all those people were on the battlefield. Sixty six percent were picked up by Pakistani authorities. If even half of them were picked up on the battlefield, that leaves over a third of the prisoners being of questionable origin. I strongly suspect that given the sums of money involved and the lack of oversight, we're dealing with a large number of people who were definitely not rounded up from the battlefield.

Of course, your original point holds--they aren't being rounded up "concentration camp" style, but "witch hunt" style might not be much of a stretch. I certainly agree that using the word "detainee" for somebody being held for years without a trial is whitewashing a situation that our leaders might call "disappearing" if it were Hugo Chavez doing it.

Re:Not to be partisan, but...

[damn_registrars]

In specific, send them back to Afghanistan when the government there can guarantee they won't be wielding an AK any more
So basically, we want a pro-US government in Afghanistan that will take these prisoners, and then throw them in prison indefinitely (or execute them)? At that point, we'll be willing to call the conflict resolved?

Sorry, but that sounds like empire building to me. Of course, an alternative would be that enemy combatants are released to Afghanistan, who subsequently "forgets" about them. Said combatant then disappears to Durkadurkastan for a while, and we call that a victory as well, since they are no longer fighting against us for Afghanistan?

This of course also seems to ignore the fact that these guys were often

• Taken from countries other than that which they would call home
• Taken from countries which were not defined by their own people
• Taken from countries which have diverse ethnic groups with no clear consensus on leadership

So I don't think it really makes sense even to depend on new Afghanistan leadership to take care of these prisoners who may or may not be from there to begin with.

Taliban eradicated, and control of the whole country
There's also a problem here with defining eradication of the Taliban. Is that just when they are no longer in Afghanistan? Because of course there are pro-Taliban forces outside of Afghanistan. And the Taliban itself is almost as much of an idea as it is an organization. How does one eradicate an idea? And beyond that, don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that Taliban representatives were welcomed into the US.

Stop torture now

[BagMan2]

Wow, according to the wiki page, they now punish them by cutting their hair. These American's must be stopped, I have never heard of anything so inhumane.

Re:Stop torture now

[porpnorber]

It's true that there are worse things, but - would you care to be forced to wear lipstick? To have your armpits shaved? I don't think you're thinking about this clearly. Taking control of another person's appearance is a serious psychological exercise.

Re:Stop torture now

[Anonymous Coward]

would you care to be forced to wear lipstick? To have your armpits shaved? I don't think you're thinking about this clearly. Taking control of another person's appearance is a serious psychological exercise. You must be referring to some sort of interrogation techniques. No, nobody should LIKE any of that, that's exactly why it would be used. It IS a serious psychological exercise.

Do you believe interrogation is necessary? How do you think it should be handled? Do you have a better method of collecting intelligence from a prisoner? From an (suspected) enemy combatant?
It's a reality that many people can't cope with.

First, admit it may be necessary, or come up with a plausible alternative. Then think about how you would handle it in all the cases we face today. Apply to war, military, government, intelligence gathering, etc.
Lets stop with the criticism until you really understand why it's done, how it's done, and came up with a better way on your own.

Re:Stop torture now

[porpnorber]

Interrogation should be performed by asking people questions; I believe that's what the word means. Neither rubber hoses nor hair scissors are required; those are tools for the emotional gratification of the interrogator.

If there are answers that you are determined to get, well, to be utterly Machiavellian about this, manufacturing data is better done by making it up from whole cloth than it is by pressuring people to 'admit' to it—you have better control of both presentation and content, and there are actually less long-term political ramifications.

As to "(suspected) enemy combatants," a suspect is innocent. That is a fundamental legal principle. If you can't even prove that they're a soldier, much less that they're guilty of anything, then let them go!

So, no, I will not admit that it is necessary. Even if you take your rubber hose to me I will not be admitting that it is necessary—those will forever your words and your ideas, no matter what sounds you force from my mouth.

There are methods for dealing with actual problems. The situation here, though, is that a problem has been invented and generating evidence for it is proving troublesome!

Now, none of this is to say that there aren't terrorists, or that terrorists aren't a problem. But the difficulty is not what is pretended. First, terrorists often seem to be, or be epiphenomena of, covert operations of prominent governments. The rational thing to do would be for governments to scale back such operations—to take a stance of simply not doing such things. Second, when looked at politically and statistically, it is apparent that terrorism is a problem on the scale of a crime, not of a war. The tools for dealing with international crimes are institutions such as Interpol, not the army. Should the problem rise to the scale of genocide, we now even have the International Criminal Court (though the US refuses to submit to it). The only obvious adjustments to be made are (a) to take these institutions more seriously, (b) perhaps to extended the scope of the ICC downwards to sub-genocidal patterns of violent crime that national governments decline to deal with, and (c) to abide by the principles of universal respect for human rights and the rule of law, without which you become the enemy of civilisation.

Re:Stop torture now

[Von Helmet]

Some religions, Judaism for example, command that followers not cut at least certain bits of their hair. I don't know if the same is true for the religion of choice of the majority of Gitmo's guests, but the point is still relevant.

Re:Stop torture now

[dbIII]

It certainly is more humane than getting sodomised by large dogs. It's still unconfirmed hearsay from a few ex-prisoners but it puts a few other things into a different context (it may explain why dogs terrified so many naked prisoners). I suspect there will be some more news coming out soon about GITMO and various other sites as court cases involving released prisoners progress and the religeous voters in the USA may be in for a big enough shock to change things.

Re:Exercise prohibited. Personal mail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also prohibited: many forms of exercise, including any form of organized exercise, martial arts practice, etc. This would include calisthenics, basketball, and so forth. This effectively denies the prisoners any physical exercise, which is a punishment itself. Wouldn't that mean you can do calisthenics on your own, you just can't run a calisthenics class for your fellow detainees?

Re:Exercise prohibited. Personal mail.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Gitmo is so inhumane, it is the worst atrocity of our generation. We have many worse atrocities than Gitmo. Just ask the folks from the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, the Kurds, the NYC Fire Department, the parents of the kids in the Oklahoma City Federal Building day care center, the spouses of those killed in the Pentagon, the families of people on planes who were flown into buildings, etc. Gitmo isn't anywhere close to the top of that list, and that's just off the top of my head. No personal mail? No exercise? You just described most of /. readers.

Gitmo sucks, it's the worst version of ourselves to present to the world, but it pales in comparison.

stupid misclick

[BitterAndDrunk]

undoing overrated mod. meant to be +1 funny.

Re:stupid misclick

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC so as not to undo -1 overrated

Bush is GREAT,

[tjstork]

You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.


I not only voted for Bush, but gave him money twice. Bring your uncontrollable fists, you thug, and I'll bring my rifle. I really could care less if I piss you off, and you will not threaten me or anyone else, you traitor.

Re:Bush is GREAT,

[rossifer]

Interesting retort. Did you get some help with the big words?

Traitor? You're the one who supported and voted for the man who uses the Constitution of the US as toilet paper. If you thought this country was worth anything, you'd have recognized who was shitting on everything good about it and done something about it. Instead, you voted for him. Twice.

And then, to top off that gargantuan fuck-up, you're here defending your pathetic decision making with threats of lethal violence. I only want to beat some sense into those people who are responsible for the ruin of my civil rights, my privacy, and my liberties. Yeah, I'm funny that way.

If one of us is a traitor to the ideals of the USA, it's not me. So go fuck yourself, and your little fantasy with your rifle.

Re:Bush is GREAT,

[tjstork]

Traitor? You're the one who supported and voted for the man who uses the Constitution of the US as toilet paper

Oh please. Yes, the PATRIOT ACT sucks donkey dick, but the Democrats have been in Congress for a year now, and I've not seen them approve one bill to get rid of it. Same with FISA warrants. So, stop you Democratic dick sucking and look at reality. Your boys don't give a shit either.

Now, aside from that, in general, Bush has extended the amount of rights to the American people. He has:

a) reduced taxes. Therefor, people have more economic power.
b) reduced regulations. Therefor, people have more real power. Any law the government does not enforce, is more power for the people. Period.
c) would have privatized social security, giving people even MORE power.
d) interpreted the 2nd amendment as a right to keep and bear arms, stuffed the bench with judges who feel the same, and, best of all, allowed the so-called assault weapons ban to expire.
e) proposed a national sales tax or flat tax to replace current tax code. This, incidentally, would require the government to collect less personal information.

Conversely, Democrats would:

a) increase taxes
b) put in additional rules to "save the planet"
c) put in additional rules to "save women, minorities, etc"
d) have introduced legislation to add more auditors to the IRS
e) have introduced legislation to give the government access to all of your medical records.

So, in one corner, you have Bush occasionally reading your email. In the other corner,

And, finally, if you have been reading Slashdot at all, you might have noticed THAT THE GUYS THAT ARE SUING DATRUTHDUDE IN NEW JERSEY A R E D E M O C R A T S. That's right, your boys are suing so that every fricking city in the USA has the power to overturn free speech. Way to go.

And then, to top off that gargantuan fuck-up, you're here defending your pathetic decision making with threats of lethal violence. I only want to beat some sense into those people who are responsible for the ruin of my civil rights, my privacy, and my liberties

Let's see, you are basically making the argument that you have the right to be people up for your supposed loss of liberties. As I pointed out above, under Bush, you've actually gotten more real power. Let's see, the PATRIOT and FISA are a wash, because, the Democrats are still supporting those laws. And, Bush supports your right to keep your money, your right to keep and bear arms, your right to your own private property, while the Democrats want to take your money, your guns, and your land. Yet, somehow, you feel like you have more civil rights. So, you want to beat people up for giving you more, and you claim that isn't violent? I think it is only logical that you would be shot in return. You are just like Chavez and Castro and all those other thugs that came before you. At the end of the day, you want all these powers for yourself, so you can enslave everyone else. Please, you go right ahead and try and punch a few people, but if you socialist bastards really ever do take control of this country, I promise I won't be coming back at you with just fists. I'd use nukes, if I could get them!

BETTER DEAD THAN SOCIALIST.

Re:Bush is GREAT,

[rossifer]

Much better post. I'll respond in kind.

First off, something got mixed up somewhere, because I'm no Democrat. To my wife's eternal frustration, I'm a registered Republican and have voted Republican or Libertarian since I was able to vote. But Bush and his neo-con cronies aren't Republicans that represent me or my brand of conservatism. If anything, I'm a libertarian. Less government. Smaller executive branch. Fewer big government agencies. No big brother agencies. No surveillance of US residents without warrants. Bush goes against all of those things.

Bush did great on gun rights, and I'm happy about that (since I'm also a gun owner of pistols, shotguns, and rifles, both hunting and "mean looking" guns), but I'm not a one issue voter, so that's not enough.

Bush has been against abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage (what possible reason is there to object?) and just about every moral issue that I feel strongly about. He wants to make sure that the government is highly involved in your private life.

I suppose we can be happy that he didn't increase taxes, but he radically increased spending, and we're just beginning to pay the price for that (the T-Bills issued to pay for the war spending in Iraq are one direct cause of the dollar's devaluation against other currencies). Clinton left office with a balanced budget. Bush has been the biggest spender (and biggest deficit spender) of any president, on the planet, ever. Can't at least one party be for limited government? Shouldn't it be the Republicans? So where's the frustration with the open checkbook that was the Republican executive and legislature?

Bush wants to eliminate FISA and the FISC for his massive wiretapping "big brother" campaign, despite the fact that the government can get warrants after the wiretaps have happened, and FISC is the most government-friendly court yet invented.

As you imply, Bush wants to be able to throw US troops around the world without any kind of congressional oversight and has essentially put the final nail in the "congress shall have the power to declare war" phrase of the constitution.

And yeah, the PATRIOT act is an enormous heaping pile of shit. The federal police weren't missing any powers that would have prevented 9/11. FBI agents were on top of the plan and most of the players but weren't getting any support from on high. The FBI was complacent and the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. were not sharing data like they were already empowered (and supposed) to do. These expansions of police powers and use of the CIA for domestic monitoring is not literally unconstitutional, but certainly goes against the general theme of limited powers and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is getting awfully thin.

Then, there are all of the "faith based" initiatives, where government spending on social services has basically been sent to churches, mostly well-connected megachurches (the kind with McDonald's and ATM's in the back) and the accountability and performance expectations have been completely removed. This is direct funding of organized, fundamentalist Christianity, and it's directly against the first amendment as well as a horrific waste of already wasteful pork spending.

So, let's spin back around to the whole "I get spitting angry at people who voted twice for Bush" thing.

So, you want to beat people up for giving you more, and you claim that isn't violent? I think it is only logical that you would be shot in return.

Um, yeah. I have so much more. Let me count the ways. Also, drop the "tough armed guy" act. Trust me, it's really, really hard to shoot another person, even if they truly and deeply deserve it. I've been there and it's tough. I'm just not buying your tale that you're ready to shoot me because I'm angry enough at Bush voters to get into a fist fight over it. I have my CCW and carry whenever and wherever legal to do so, but

Re:Bush is GREAT,

[tjstork]

Bush has been against abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage (what possible reason is there to object?) and just about every moral issue that I feel strongly about. He wants to make sure that the government is highly involved in your private life.

The fact of the matter is, ALL of these issues, and others that you are so worked up about, are edge issues.

Bush's opposition to abortion has largely been token. Really, I don't think its unreasonable to say that a woman can make up her mind by the third trimester, and also, geopolitically, the USA needs its population to increase to stay with the Chinese, fund social security, and other entitlements.

Embryonic stem cells, too, is an edge issue. If they had so much commercial potential, then, private businesses can fund them. There's nothing Bush has done to stop Merck or Glaxo from researching embryonic stem cells. All he has done is oppose federal research money for that. If big pharma doesn't see the commercial potential, then maybe there isn't any. This is an edge issue: "the government must fund this..", and I'm afraid you've fallen for it.

Gay marriage is a joke on both sides of the coin. I don't think its marriage in the real sense of the word, but I also don't buy that it somehow threatens my marriage, and above all I think proposing a constitutional amendment to explicitly ban gay marriage is the most absurd proposition since the Alien and Sedition acts.

The thing with Bush is, that, he tried to move the party to the left a bit. That was a dubious proposition at best, but even if it could work, Bush's not well spoken or eloquent enough to capture the imagination of the left. You need a different sort of Republican that can attract the left - a manly kind of guy that likes his guns and cars, yes, but is also capable of competently discussing the latest in science and Bush just isn't the guy.

You also need someone to argue that the war is a bipartisan effort, genuinely a crusade, and to get a crusade, you have to make the kinds of bipartisan deals to do it. Bush didn't. Attempting to reform social security during a war was about the dumbest and most confrontational thing he could. He would have been better served by sticking a few Dems in his cabinet and forming a wartime government, from the get-go.

Falling dollar
Is caused by the dollar being overvalued to begin with as a consequence of the asian currency crisis. Bush's devaluing the dollar is starting to work wonders for American manufacturing. In fact, our rising exports is the reason why the economy is still moving along despite high energy prices.

For normal people, it just doesn't work that way.

I'm not normal. I'm not even the fighting type - most of the time, I just walk away, because I enjoy it too much. If someone punches me, my first instinct is to try and kill the guy, but I walk away, because its more right to just take the punch than it is to smash someone's head in with a stick in retaliation. I remember someone once tried to take my lunch money, so I loaded up a pretzel with razor blades and gave it to him. I still remember him, saying, "I was just playing with you... and you tried to kill me". Well, I always kept my lunch money, after that, for sure.

With that said, your making threats online is completely wrong. I've seen people time and time again trying to bully their way on the internet and intimidate people who would disagree with them. The only way to deal with them is to confront them, and let them know that they cannot bully people around. What you did was wrong, and that you continue to defend your actions remains wrong. You either choose to use violence to further a political point, or you don't. And you chose the former, and still do so.

We all need to choose to walk away.

Kerry

Kerry would have been a disaster. It's not just that Kerry "flip flopped" on the war, it was that, he made a crass political decision to support the invasion of Iraq

QQ

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never served in the military.

Please explain what experience you have in these matters allows you to make the following judgements:

"MPs can handle that type of guard duty"
"Changing all references of MP to Guard means the military can start using either regular enlisted who are not properly trained to run a prison, or hire private contractors to run the prison."

If you don't know what you're talking about, STFU.

Re:QQ

[phoenix.bam!]

Thank you for your very informative post. Could you please expand the part where enlisted are trained to run prisoner of war detention camps? Thanks!

"Enemy Combatants"

[DrVomact]

In this context, it might be relevant to note that our use of such legal reasoning to avoid giving captured enemy combatants the protection of either the Geneva conventions—or any other sort of law—is not without precedent. In 1941, General Eisenhower declared all captured German soldiers to be "Disarmed Enemy Forces", and not prisoners of war. This meant that the United States was free to ignore international laws that required such niceties as feeding prisoners (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs for some background). It also meant that "extraordinary" interrogation methods could be used to obtain evidence for the upcoming war crimes trials. The justification for Eisenhower's action was that the German state no longer existed, and that the prisoners were thus no longer the soldiers of any such state. I guess they were "non-state actors".

The major difference between 1941 and today is that this treatment of German prisoners was temporary, lasting only a matter of months, while now we have the Never-Ending War on Terror.

Re:"Enemy Combatants"

[DrVomact]

Sorry, the events I describe took place in 1945, not, of course, 1941.

Re:"Enemy Combatants"

[MozeeToby]

Very interesting, I guess I never realized that abuse of German prisoners was quite so widespread during/after the war. On a lighter note, there was actually a German POW camp not far from my home town where the situation was pretty much the opposite.

At the time, the area had a huge german immigrant population and the prisoners would regularly break out at night to attend barn dances and parties only to break back in the next morning. Supposedly the people running the camp knew it was going on but nobody bothered to do anything about it.

Hard to understand how there could be such harsh mistreatment in some places while also having such lax security in others.

Re:"Enemy Combatants"

[cold fjord]

I think these are the most informative passages from one of the articles:

Canadian novelist James Bacque has alleged that nearly one million German prisoners of war were redesignated as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" by U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower in order to avoid having to obey the third Geneva Convention, died of starvation or exposure while held in post-war Western internment camps.

In a 1991 New York Times book review, historian and Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose responded to Mr. Bacque:

Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the Volkssturm (People's Militia) released without formal discharge and transfers of POWs to other allies control areas.

..."extraordinary" interrogation methods could be used to obtain evidence for the upcoming war crimes trials.

Right... pay no attention to the mountains of documents, eye witnesses, and bodies. There wasn't exactly a lack of evidence of the Nazi crimes.

Re:"Enemy Combatants"

[DrVomact]

It's pretty clear that Bacque's estimate of German P.O.W. deaths by starvation is greatly exaggerated; the article I cited said so and I never said otherwise. It remains an incontrovertible fact that huge numbers of German prisoners of war were confined without shelter, adequate food, or medical attention for months. It remains established historical fact that they were denied their rights as prisoners of war by Eisenhower's rather cynical proclamation. (I say "cynical" because the Germans were no longer in a position to retaliate against American P.O.W.s at this point.) It remains true that this treatment is a parallel to the treatment accorded to our "non-prisoners" today.

As for the post-war use of torture against German P.O.W.s, I cite The Devil's Adjutant: Jochen Peiper, Panzer Leader by Michael Reynolds. The author is British, and by no means a Nazi apologist. This isn't the place to debate whether the "Malmedy Massacre" took place, or whether it was truly a massacre, but the author's account of the techniques used to obtain "confessions" from Colonel Peiper's men made me feel ashamed to be an American.

As for "mountains of evidence"...yes there were mounds of paper. Does that mean that everyone who was brought up on war crimes charges was guilty? Not even the various tribunals (Nüremberg was just one) thought so.

Re:"Enemy Combatants"

[DrVomact]

Hard to understand how there could be such harsh mistreatment in some places while also having such lax security in others.

The difference can probably be attributed to two circumstances:

• This was the end of the war, and the Allies were raking in hundreds of thousands of German prisoners. Caring for such a huge "bag" of P.O.W.s was a logistical challenge. Still, more could have been done, and the fact that Eisenhower made this decision months before actually issuing the proclamation shows he was aware of the problem and did nothing to prepare for it.
• The Germans were no longer in a position to retaliate--they'd lost the war, and no German commander was going to order reprisals at this point.

In fairness, it's important to note that the German treatment of Russian prisoners was far worse than that accorded to the Germans by Eisenhower. Like the Americans, the Germans had their excuses, of course—too many prisoners all at once, and of course the Russians never signed the Geneva conventions in the first place...not to mention that the Russians didn't treat German prisoners with great kindness. No love lost on either side there.

Your story about German P.O.W.s "escaping" overnight rings true. I remember reading about a German general who did just that—broke out of camp one night, then came back the next day. Unfortunately for the camp commander—and ultimately for the General—the purpose of this excursion was to mail a letter to the U.S. Senators from the state in which the camp was located, complaining of "violations" of the Geneva conventions (minor stuff, like not enough mail, etc.). This got the camp commander in a great deal of hot water, but ultimately got the General handed over to the French on "war crimes" charges that amounted to "waging war". He served over a decade in prison for that little outing.

Imprison under Strict Islamic Law

[tjstork]

I say we imprison these people under strict Islamic law. If they are caught stealing from the camp, then off with their hands. If they don't pray at the right time, stone them.

Um, NO.

[ToasterMonkey]

Military Police work on every single US military installation in the country, probably the world. They control traffic at gates, catch speeders, and write parking tickets just like their civilian counterparts. They also work in brigs watching over our own troops. Your assertion that Military Police only guard POWs is completely, and utterly wrong. 'Guard' in this case may mean US military personnel OTHER than strictly MPs.

You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does.

One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick. That is WHY many things are FOUO.
This SOP was written for a very specific audience, BTW. The whole "Camp Rules" section at the top of the diff smells very fake, and at the very least is out of place/context. It would be a separate document, and obviously in different languages. If it were to be included with the SOP, I doubt the translations would be absent. Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. They're usually just kept in a binder somewhere.

Semper Fi

Re:Um, NO.

[rtechie]

You all want to know one of the main reasons things like SOPs for military installations are marked FOUO? Or why anything is marked FOUO for that matter? It's because there are too many idiots who misinterpret things because they don't understand BASIC military terminology for one, or they can't even begin to understand what our military actually does. It's fucking CYA. I can tell you have military experience because of all the acronyms. It's For Official Use Only because virtually every non-trivial communication is classified by the military because they don't want to deal with oversight, which is usually tied to how they piss away money, not human rights.

Who the hell keeps getting these as PDFs anyway? I didn't think they were ever distributed electronically outside of formal messaging systems. The leaker could have scanned the documents in himself. The SOP is definitely real, as other whistle blowers have described parts of it.

Re:Um, NO.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

One after another, "Maybe it's Blackwater", "Maybe the prisoners are guards", "Maybe it's aliens". It makes present and former military personnel sick.

You know what makes me sick? People who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and then wink at violations of the basic concepts of freedom which that document embodies. I swore the same oath you did, jarhead, and I take it seriously. Clearly you don't.

Re:Um, NO.

[ToasterMonkey]

Winked at what, exactly?

So you were in the military too, huh? GOOD, so you know exactly what it means to sacrifice your own freedoms and liberties to defend others. Tell all the other readers what it means when you swear that oath. Tell them about the freedom you have while serving your country. Why don't you explain to them the scope of the UCMJ?

Here is our oath, with emphasis added.

"I, ______________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Here is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, in case you forgot why we have one. I've added emphasis around parts you may have forgotten.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I took it fucking seriously. You must be confusing it with some international treaty, and I hope you didn't join the US military with some notion that the scope of our constitution includes the whole fucking world, including our enemies. Do you really understand WHO you're defending it for?

Re:Um, NO.

[cycoj]

Military Police work on every single US military installation in the country, probably the world. They control traffic at gates, catch speeders, and write parking tickets just like their civilian counterparts. They also work in brigs watching over our own troops. Your assertion that Military Police only guard POWs is completely, and utterly wrong. 'Guard' in this case may mean US military personnel OTHER than strictly MPs.

Man you seriously need to work on your logic. The OP said (paraphrased) if guarded by MP -> POW now from that it does not follow: MP only guard POW. What does follow is: No POW is guarded by non-MP. So next time think before writing.

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray tell, what does one do if issued an order from the commander-in-chief which stands in direct violation of the constitution?

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Winked at what, exactly?

Sounds like the OP was referring to the fact that places such as Gitmo fly in the face of a bold statement made in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence - that ..."all men are created equal." If the Constitution represents the body, then the Declaration is the spirit. Basic human rights appear to be an anchor point in the foundations of the United States of America. YMMV.

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Raise an appropriate amount of protest, take the collateral damage to your reputation (personal, professional, and as a "good team member") on the chin, accept placidly that your career has now been frozen or even terminated, wait for the authorities above you to railroad you into an endless string of frustrating and stressful situations (above and beyond what can be reasonably be expected from any human being in your level and station), stay perfectly calm when the dishonorable discharge comes down the pipe, and spend the rest of your life holding a sign for food like all the other homeless recalcitrants and malcontents and accept the fact that it will be years before anyone in the general public considers you a citizen of any merit even on the level of their pet rock, much less actually associate with you or give you any productive human interaction.

The technique has already proven to be very effective when tested on passport holding citizens who have raised similar concerns within corporate environments.

Re:Um, NO.

[ToasterMonkey]

It's fucking CYA. I can tell you have military experience because of all the acronyms. It's For Official Use Only because virtually every non-trivial communication is classified by the military because they don't want to deal with oversight, which is usually tied to how they piss away money, not human rights. Yes it is. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that there's a shortage of oversight in the military, but they're definitely trying to avoid criticism from the unwashed masses. You're probably right about their budget being the primary concern for keeping many things quiet. There are plenty of non-budget related things that don't need to be released to the general public, and don't rate being classified though.

The leaker could have scanned the documents in himself. The SOP is definitely real, as other whistle blowers have described parts of it. The only thing that I thought was out of place was the "Camp Rules" stuff that shows up at the top of the diff. It just looks like it doesn't belong. Maybe as an attachment or something, or one of the many leaflets clipped into a SOP binder, but not the way it's presented by the article here.

Re:Um, NO.

[darkpixel2k]

Sounds like the OP was referring to the fact that places such as Gitmo fly in the face of a bold statement made in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence - that ..."all men are created equal."

All men are created equal. But after we are created and 'grow up' we get to chose out own path. Some become soldiers. Some become politicians. Others become white collar workers. And still others become murders.

...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned.

No.

Shame on the people who try to protect themselves by citing the constitution all the while trying to destroy it.

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned.

No.

Shame on the people who try to protect themselves by citing the constitution all the while trying to destroy it.

No.

Even convicted "murderers" are not subject to "cruel and unusual punishment." They are granted a fair judgment and still receive a fundamental level of human decency under the Constitution.

There is no shame in treating a fellow human being like a person. The only shame here is borne of cruelty.

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

Murderers do, in fact, have the same rights as the rest of us--namely, the right to be accused and tried as murderers with full respect to their human and civil rights until such time as they are duly convicted. What court, pray tell, convicted the alleged "unlawful enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo concentration camp? And of what charges?

Re:Um, NO.

[mi]

What court, pray tell, convicted the alleged "unlawful enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo concentration camp? And of what charges?

No court has convicted them, so what? Your real point is that they are, supposedly, held illegally.

So, just name the law, which is violated by their detention and win the argument instantly.

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

No court has convicted them, so what? Your real point is that they are, supposedly, held illegally.

So, just name the law, which is violated by their detention and win the argument instantly.

Actually, the point was that the detainees' human rights were being violated and that the USA protects even the human rights of murderers. Imprisoning anyone without charge flies directly in the face of the founding principles of the USA.

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

So, just name the law, which is violated by their detention and win the argument instantly.

The fifth and sixth amendments to the US constitution. Unfortunately, people nowadays think you're a crazy person for mentioning that in an argument.

Re:Um, NO.

[darkpixel2k]

No court has convicted them yet.
They are being detained.

If I wondered into a crowd of people and started shooting, I'd be detained in jail until my trial. And no one would be crying that my detainment was unlawful.

Yet for some reason everyone is screaming that DURING war it's illegal to detain these criminals, POWs, whatever.

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no trial scheduled for these people. They are detained indefinitely, without charge.

Even if you "wandered" into a crowd of people and started shooting, I'd still be right there complaining if your human and/or constitutional rights were summarily ignored.

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

If you wandered into a crowd of people and began shooting, you would be jailed, given access to an attorney and the use of the court system to contest your jailing, and promptly tried for your crimes, all the while presumed innocent before proven guilty. If you were taken as a prisoner of war, you would be held within the theatre of war, not tried (at least not by the same country that was holding you prisoner), and granted your rights under the Geneva Convention. The problem with Guantanamo is that the American government refuses to abide by either of these codes of legal oversight. Holding prisoners per se is not what's at issue here--what is at issue is that these prisoners are being held with absolutely no oversight and no respect either to their human rights or to their rights under American and international law.

Re:Um, NO.

[mi]

The fifth and sixth amendments to the US constitution. Unfortunately, people nowadays think you're a crazy person for mentioning that in an argument.

First of all, none of the detainees in Guantanamo are US-citizens, so the US Constitution does not apply to them. This may be why people look at you funny, when you try to push this argument anyway.

Second, neither of the two amendments you listed would apply even to a US citizen in this case:

• The Fifth is out, because it explicitly excludes: "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".
• The Sixth is out, because it applies only to criminal prosecutions.

Give it up — this is a very hard legal question. US Supreme Court will be looking into this issue soon, and what these legal minds decide is anybody's guess.

It would appear, the Administration has found a loophole in the law and is using it. It will be using it until the hole is closed, but there is nothing illegal about their current "exploit"...

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read the page you've linked to more carefully.

Neither the Fifth nor the Sixth amendments refer to US citizens only: the Fifth states that "no PERSON shall be..."; the Sixth refers only to the "accused". Neither, in other words, distinguishes between citizens and foreign nationals; the intent of both is in fact to limit Federal Government's power to imprison people, and by extension to protect the liberties of the governed.

The clause you cite in the Fifth Amendment, which allegedly limits its application to the armed forces and in times of war, only applies to the requirement to bring charges through a Grand Jury or by indictment (so the ban on depriving people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" continues to apply).

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

First of all, none of the detainees in Guantanamo are US-citizens, so the US Constitution does not apply to them.

That's a bullshit argument. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Why does the Bill of Rights refer to "persons" instead of "citizens"? The Bill of Rights apply to everyone under American legal authority--that's why illegal immigrants who commit crimes are tried and convicted instead of shot on sight.

The Fifth is out, because it explicitly excludes: "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".

None of the inmates in Guantanamo were serving in the American land or naval forces, or in the militia. The exception you cite is what puts American military personnel under the jurisdiction of courts-martial instead of civilian trails--it is not something that allows us to accept or seize prisoners from foreign countries just because we're at war with an abstract concept.

The Sixth is out, because it applies only to criminal prosecutions.

The sixth amendment provides the right to a speedy and public trial to anyone accused of crimes. And if these people are not accused of crimes, why are they being held prisoner? (They are, by the government's own admission, not prisoners of war.)

Re:Um, NO.

[sumdumass]

If I was to print a document titled _The articles of incorporation and employee handbook for the "Leftist Corporation Inc."_ and inside that document it describes what the officers of the company are supposed to do and limits what they can do with respect to it's employees and management. Would a sentence that says no person shall have sexual relations with an employee be construed to anyone outside that company?

This is a serious question, would the words "no person" mean that no one outside or inside the company can have sexual relations with anyone working at the company who is considered an employee? The first answer should be obvious, the rest of the document describes the employees and financial officers of the company and it should only be construed to be effecting them. The second answer, although still valid, is that the company only had power over it's own employees.

Well, the same holds up for the Constitution of the United States of America. So when we have a passage in the constitution that says "No Person", we still have to look at what people it is talking about. Other parts of the consitution make it clear that it is talking about citizens and others legally in the US and subject to it's control. We also need to look at whether or not the US has power over the person and how they got that power. Simply claiming I have the power doesn't work. So we need to determine what it is.

In the case of the detainees, we see that we are exerting power over them because of a war congress declared and approved. I know there is no Act of war in the traditions sense like during WW2 but the Supreme court has already said the use of force and the authorization for Iraq and Afghanistan was in fact a declaration of war. So know we have a power over these people that would meet the cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger criteria.

but seeing how our power is limited to that respect, does anything else in the constitution still apply? Well, the courts have already ruled on that too. They have said that unless a law extends the rights/protections of the citizens in the constitution to foreigners, then it doesn't apply. It did this in the decision that found a law did extend constitutional protections to a foreigner and that the lack or inconvenience in finding a suitable court was no excuse for not following the constitutional protections afforded to them. So we look back and see if a law extends the protections to them, and to date, the answer is no.

well, no is a loaded answer, no law directly covers them and congress's suspension of habeas corpus for some has effectively removed the existing laws for a certain sections of the people.

Now, I know your probably pissed and filled with rage about right now. But don't be. The supreme court is addressing this very issue this session. But don't be surprised when they rule. They have already questioned the idea that being held in Gitmo actually allows cause for the case to be argued and said it would err on the side of caution. So in essence, they are hearing the case even after they believe there is no grounds for a detainee in gitmo to challenge their detention in the courts. But, if all the logic I just presented is somehow different for the US government, then you will be corect in your interpretation and things will change.

So in closing, I just want to say that you should hold of in getting your panties in a bunch. Soon, the question will be answered and we will know one way or the other. But there is no reason at this stage to counter conventional logic and artificially extend our hopes beyond the reach of the US constitution. I personally believe it doesn't apply but that doesn't mean I don't want it too. IT would be nice if it did. I'm just not going to get my blood pressure rising over nothing. You shouldn't either. And unless there is some sort of personal bond with these people, it isn't worth your time this late in the game. save the corny arguments until after the court has ruled when hopefully you will be validated.

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

I was going to take the time and effort to read and intelligently respond to your remarks, but if you immediately assume I'm going to lose my cool, that indicates to me one of three things: either that you're trolling, that you don't know how to civilly disagree with another person, or that you believe (without any evidence) that I don't know how to civilly disagree with another person. Either way I don't think it's possible for us to continue this discussion in good faith. As a word of advice--if, in your experience, people do become irritated at you, it's probably because of your condescending tone, and asking people not to be angry at you doesn't exactly fix that.

Re:Um, NO.

[sumdumass]

I was assuming you would lose your cool because everyone else I presented those arguments to has. Nothing on you personally but just working from past experiences and I was trying to head it off.

And to be honest, the second to last paragraph isn't really immediately in the sense that other besides you will be reading it too. Unfortunately, I sometimes write as if I am expecting the response of others in addition to the person I am communicating with when in a forum such as slashdot.

BTW, the tone isn't intentional. I was attempting to be direct without seeming contemptuous. I don't know if you noticed, by creative writing isn't really a strong point with me. I tend to write as if I would talk to you and sometimes it doesn't come through as intended without the facial expressions and other body language. So if I offended you, I do apologize.

Re:Um, NO.

[ToasterMonkey]

...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned. Awhat?

Were you talking to me, or did you click the wrong reply link?

By scope, I meant something like our territories, or our citizens, not uhhh.. people in our penal system, which ARE covered BTW. They may be in prison, but we don't take away all their money or property, dissolve marriages, restrict their freedom of speech, revoke citizenship, etc as a form of punishment.

Damn, I'll trade you my -1 overrated for one of your +1 insightful! Must be a lot of nutty moderators out there...

Re:Um, NO.

[mi]

That's a bullshit argument. Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Right there in the title: "Constitution of the United States of America".

None of the inmates in Guantanamo were serving in the American land or naval forces, or in the militia.

So? They did serve in the militia (or even land forces) — the exception in the Amendment does not say the force has to be American for the exception to apply. And for good reason — the Amendment does not apply to prisoners of war either.

The sixth amendment provides the right to a speedy and public trial to anyone accused of crimes.

Yes, it also requires the trial be held in the district, "where the crime shall have been committed"... It is patently obvious, that the Amendment is intended to civilian criminal cases only.

And if these people are not accused of crimes, why are they being held prisoner?

Because we captured them while prosecuting a war, that is still ongoing. Unlike, say, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, whom we released long ago, these guys are not prisoners of war. They are accused of being unlawful combatants, and the international treaties require us to try them by "an appropriate tribunal". Fortunately for the Administration, the treaties don't prescribe any particular time-frame, so, once again, nothing illegal is happening, however ugly it may be nonetheless.

Re:Um, NO.

[darkpixel2k]

If you wandered into a crowd of people and began shooting, you would be jailed, given access to an attorney and the use of the court system to contest your jailing, and promptly tried for your crimes,

Yeah. I re-read what I wrote and realized I didn't convey my thoughts very well.
If I wandered into a crowd and began shooting and I was a US citizen, I am covered by the rights, rules, and laws of my country. On the other hand, if I weren't a US citizen and I said "screw all you Americans, you all must die according to my beliefs. Oh yeah--and I am going to destry your country and everything you stand for."...where would I get covered by the rights in our founding documents? I'm not a US citizen and I'm out to kill Americans and attempt to destroy the foundation of our country (the founding documents).

In other words, why should I get the protections from a nation that I don't belong to and that I am trying to wipe out?
Why should I get protection from a set of rules and laws that I hate and am actively trying to destroy?

...and why would you want them to have that protection? I mean seriously--why would you want to protect someone who wants to kill you, someone who won't reason with you or try to peaceably co-exist?

Re:Um, NO.

[darkpixel2k]

Awhat?
Were you talking to me, or did you click the wrong reply link?

Possibly. It is even possible I was surfing while intoxicated and therefore drunkenly clicked the wrong reply link.
Maybe I can get a lib to tell me I'm not responsible and that society as failed me.

Hell--maybe I can even get into some sort of social program for wrong-reply-link-clickers. ;)

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

And for good reason -- the Amendment does not apply to prisoners of war either.

No, the Geneva Conventions do, and the administration has openly stated these are not prisoners of war. Nowhere does the Constitution (or for that matter any law) give the government the authority to hold people prisoner indefinitely, without trial, and without any sort of legal or judicial oversight whatsoever. And yet, that is exactly what our government is doing in Guantanamo Bay.

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

If you started shooting people at random in a crowded city square, what exactly do we gain by not giving you a fair trial, whether or not you're a US citizen? Do you realize that when illegal immigrants commit crimes in this country, we give them fair trials instead of, say, sending them to a concentration camp or summarily executing them? The purpose of those protections is most assuredly not to grant American citizens special privileges. The purpose of those protections is to ensure that the American government and the American people know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a suspect is guilty before they are punished for their crimes.

And do you know why I want to maintain those legal protections? Because I don't want to see human beings rounded up, forcibly relocated, imprisoned, or murdered purely on the say-so of the President. Those "protections" don't only protect the accused from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit--they protect entire nations from genocide. It's happened in the history of this country. We should never let it happen again.

Re:Um, NO.

[ToasterMonkey]

Hehe, I understand

Re:Um, NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

So next time think before writing.

You bastard -- why do you want to destroy Slashdot?

Re:Um, NO.

[darkpixel2k]

And do you know why I want to maintain those legal protections? Because I don't want to see human beings rounded up, forcibly relocated, imprisoned, or murdered purely on the say-so of the President. Those "protections" don't only protect the accused from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit--they protect entire nations from genocide. It's happened in the history of this country. We should never let it happen again.

I'm not a history student or anything--but when the heck did this country commit genocide? Or did I miss something?

Re:Um, NO.

[The One and Only]

Against the Indians.

Re:Um, NO.

[darkpixel2k]

Against the Indians.

Oh duh. Well I feel like a retard for forgetting that.

Re:Um, NO.

[rtechie]

There are plenty of non-budget related things that don't need to be released to the general public

It is THIS attitude that is the problem. EVERYTHING should be released to the public unless the military can put forward an extremely strong justification for why they should do so. For example, the details of military deployments during the Vietnam War are still classified. Why? I can think of no legitimate reason for concealing this information.

More important that concealing information from "the public", the military conceals a great deal of information from Congress. in particular the committees that are supposed to oversee how they spend money on "secret" projects (the majority of the military budget). They basically aren't told anything at all. All they get is a cryptic one-line description of the program (Like "aerial surveillance system").

Re:Give them refugee status.

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the FUCK did the US put itself in this predicament? Those Ragheaded SOB's killed thousands here and beheaded others there and for what? WE didn't start this shit and how we treat those bastards is our business. All of them should be drawn quartered disemboweled and stuffed with pig entrails and then shipped back to their country of origin. US put itself in this predicament indeed. IDIOT they attacked first.

More Slashtard Liberal Rage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn... this site is so bitter and angry about Bush. They might as well call the site "BUSHDOT" because it literally is like a rubber room for liberals who need something to whine or scream about. WTF?

Re:More Slashtard Liberal Rage

[Anonymous Coward]

A taste of your own ignorant right wing medicine:

If you don't like /. and its contributors, leave!

Besides the point

[BlueParrot]

At the gist of it, the situation is as follows:

The government can claim that they suspect you are a terrorist, and then imprison you for the rest of your life, without trial, without a lawyer, without any contact with the outside world, and without even telling your relatives why.

Effectively, they can take your life away without any justification, without having to have your case tested in court, without obeying the constitution, without caring about the geneva convention, without even giving any form of justification why they did this other than "suspected terrorist".

The fact that they have actually done this to a number of people ( some of which committed suecide while imrisoned ) makes this piece of paper absolutely irrelevant. If they can ignore the spirit ( and quite arguably letter ) of the constitution and international law, what makes you think they give a tiny rats ass about a non-binding paper they have written themselves?

It is really very simple. The government claims that once mistaken for a terrorist an innocent person has no rights. Now, unless you can keep a straight face and claim that the government doesn't make mistakes, you will have to conclude that the pressent administration considers it acceptable to maintain a policy which sees innocent people imprisioned without even the right to know why, for how long, or if they will ever be released again. They consider it acceptable to deprive innocent people of any form of contact with their loved ones, or any opportunity whatsoever to proove that they are innocent.

Thus my question is, how the fuck can you defend such a policy and still sleep at night?

You're welcome.

[FatSean]

If America cannot exist as the free country it claims to be, then it needs to be reformed or destroyed.

Re:Not to be partisan, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Empire building my ass. We want a government that won't allow terrorist to breed and flurish protect in their country. You are the one inserting pro american. That is not one of the defined criteria for success.

As for eradicating the Idea. It isn't the idea in itself that needs to be eradicated. It is the premise that you can attack innocent civilians in an attempt to force a government into a position that it would already take. There is nothing wrong with the ideals of the taliban or Al Qeada in of by itself except for the radical militant parts. Of course we won't like a religious state poping up and we wouldn't like the the idea of it's own citizens being afraid of human rights and freedoms that we take for granted. But there is nothing in this conflict that says it cannot happen, several other countries in the same area have the same types of governments. The difference is that they aren't supporting and condoning terrorist (openly anyways) and they aren't encouraging it either. There are political way to get your point across and there are ways to even effect your political ideology without killing innocent civilians. If you have to resort to those methods then it is likely that no one supports your belief.

A mistake you seem to be making here is you are either getting poisoned information or you just don't have enough of it to see then entire picture. It is possible that there are both effecting your thinking process. God knows that there is enough poisoned information out there and the administration isn't very effective at putting his own ideas out or countering the misinformation. This is probably the biggest thing separating him from Clinton, Clinton was effective at both addressing criticisms and getting his positions out in the open so that many people could understand it. If you have adopted the position of hate or that Bush is a moron, then it is logical that you wouldn't see these subtle definitions that honestly change the entire outlook.

Sensational headline, no meat.

[Maudib]

I really did not see anything all that damning in the diff. Nice sensational headline though!

You're scum.

[ClioCJS]

The 5th amendment was specifically written between two wars (1776, 1812) where a large group of people (the UK, who controlled a significant swath of this planet at the time) wanted to kill us. NOT TO MENTION the native americans. Go back to your revisionist doublethink; YOU belong in a concentration camp for being willing to throw away your own democracy. Boot-licker.

40,000,000 Americans can't afford healthcare..

[Anonymous Coward]

Including required prescribed medications, basic dental care, and EYEGLASSES.

But our government can surely afford to continue pumping BILLIONS into a war that was based on lies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0343703420071203

God Bless the USA.

Re:Exercise prohibited. Personal mail.

[LWATCDR]

"WAKE UP! Gitmo is so inhumane, it is the worst atrocity of our generation. Anything (legal) I could do to end it, I would do."
You have no idea of what is going on in the rest of the world. It may be the worst atrocity that the US has done in this generation but compared to many other places it is a walk in the park.
I am not sure that the prisoners need to be released but if they are POWs they need to be treated like POWs.

Ooh, Ooh, Can I play?

[The Angry Mick]

We could shoot these people in the field. No muss no fuss. These things happen in war. Innocent people die.

Ahhh. I love the smell of Christian values ion the morning...

Instead, at great expense, we take them to a Caribbean island and duly torture them.

Fixed that for you.

We have to go through all this B.S. because the enemy does not wear uniforms. They take pains to look like civilians. And when we make a tiny mistake through excess of caution, by collecting a civilian - that is our fault? We're the big baddies because we took care not to shoot first and ask questions later?

You know. Before 9/11, the only other terrorists attacks on U.S. soil were carried out by . . . wait for it . . . my fellow Americans Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. By your logic above, any American civilians under suspicion should be handled the same way we currently treat those in Gitmo, so it follows that there are a great many U.S. citizens that need rounding up.

Are you really and truly comfortable with that?

If someone with political leanings that are the polar opposite of yours were to declare that all followers of your beliefs are henceforth to be considered possible terrorists, would you voluntarily submit to be "duly process[ed]" in the same way the folks at Gitmo have been processed?

Good to know whose side you're on. I predict that after the next successful terrorist attack on the US mainland, it will be very unhealthy to profess such support for the enemy.

If the next terrorist attack is carried out by another American, who would the enemy be?

Absolutely useless

[XO]

How absolutely useless is it, that it's a summarized version of the diffs, supposedly?

Why can't we see the actual source documents, and the diffs themselves?

Hardly surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, is it not true that the preamble to the US Declaration of Independence reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, apart from towel-heads and sand-niggers, are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"?

Damning TYPO

[dbIII]

traded his "gun" not guy

Also remember that it a lot of cases these poeople were not brought in by soldiers but by various amataur spooks.

MY NEW BILL OF RIGHTS...

[tjstork]

And, let's see Democrats match my New Bill of Rights that I will introduce, if elected to the US Senate. (actually, I'd have to have someone in the House introduce, then support it in the Senate, but, here goes)...

This bill of rights is a set of amendments to the Constitution that gives power to the people.

1) Treaties.

Purpose: Presently, the Senate ratifies treaties. Because a treaty is the law of the land, treaties subvert the rest of the constitution. This amendment would require a general election to ratify a treaty, and so restore power to the people.

Text : No treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate will be in force until the majority of the American people vote its approval within one year of ratification by the Senate.

2) No more undeclared wars.

Purpose : This whole idea of the President being allowed to invade or bomb other people for the hell of it is a crock of shit.

Text : The President shall not use military force against another nation unless approved by the Congress. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation.

3) Search and seizure.

Purpose : People cannot be eavesdropped, or searched, without being served with a warrant. Also, police can't come in and bust up your house and damage your personal effects, and call it a search, and can't seize your possesions for a long period of time. Like, they can't take your computers and hold them for six months.

Text : No citizen shall be subject to search or interception of communications without being served by a warrant. No search shall take place that damages or destroys the materials being searched, or is otherwise compensated, and no items siezed in the process of that search shall be held for more than one month.

4) Popular citizenship. Why does the federal government have the power to decide who is a citizen and who is not? Shouldn't that be up to the states?

Text : States shall have the right to declare immigrants to that state to be citizens of that state.

Lets play logic games then.

[ToasterMonkey]

This is what the OP said.

If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war. If they're guarded by guards, then who can really say what they are? They're guarded by MPs
Therefore (with a mysterious logical argument), they are POWs

Here's your fucked up logic with too many negatives, I even fixed it for you in easy to understand steps.
No POW is guarded by non-MP
POWs are not guarded by non-MP
Only MPs guard POWs Yay, no negatives.

And my best guess at his reasoning.
MPs only guard POWs

Go ahead and insert both into what the OP said.
If they're guarded by Military Police, only MPs guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. You don't make sense.
If they're guarded by Military Police, MPs only guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. I do, so shove off, and read "The Art of Deception" or something.

As for the OPs question, I have no fucking clue what is first sentence really means, but in any case, "being guarded by MPs" is not a requirement to be a POW. So, being guarded by guards would not change the fact that they are POWs. His analogy is impossible to solve because he doesn't attempt to describe the first relationship. MP : POW :: guard : ??? ...POW

How 'bout dem apples?

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[ToasterMonkey]

I missed a step, so in case you're confused...

No POW is guarded by non-MP
POWs are not guarded by non-MP
POWs are only guarded by MPs
Only MPs guard POWs.

I reordered it to be closer in syntax to my conclusion.
As you can see:
"If they're guarded by Military Police, POWs are only guarded by MPs, so they're prisoners of war."
You still don't make sense.

BTW, how dare you try to pick apart someone's logic and say something like "No POW is guarded by non-MP"? Horrible form man.

"If they're guarded by Military Police, no POW is guarded by non-MP, so they're prisoners of war." You were TRYING to be confusing in the hopes I'd miss that, huh?

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cycoj]

BTW, how dare you try to pick apart someone's logic and say something like "No POW is guarded by non-MP"? Horrible form man. Well logical arguments do not necessarily sound elegant.

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cycoj]

This is what the OP said. If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war. If they're guarded by guards, then who can really say what they are? They're guarded by MPs Therefore (with a mysterious logical argument), they are POWs Here's your fucked up logic with too many negatives, I even fixed it for you in easy to understand steps. No POW is guarded by non-MP POWs are not guarded by non-MP Only MPs guard POWs Yay, no negatives.

Well actually I fucked up as well. No POW is guarded my non-MP is wrong as well. It should be No POW is not guarded by MP. So I really should think before writing as well.

And my best guess at his reasoning. MPs only guard POWs Go ahead and insert both into what the OP said. If they're guarded by Military Police, only MPs guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. You don't make sense. If they're guarded by Military Police, MPs only guard POWs, so they're prisoners of war. I do, so shove off, and read "The Art of Deception" or something.

The first one does make sense and means something different to the second one. However it is too strong and not the correct translation of what the OP said either. I try again.

If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war So: if guarded by MP then POW. Logical equivalence gives: All POW are guarded by MP This is equivalent to: there exists no POW which is not guarded by an MP but not to: MPs only guard POWs equivalent to: All MPs only guard a POW There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW which is essentially what you are saying.

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cycoj]

Oops sorry for the messed up linebreaks. Here's my argument again

If they're guarded by Military Police, then the likely logical argument that follows is that they're prisoners of war So:
if guarded by MP then POW
this is equivalent to:
All POW are guarded by MP
or
there exists no POW which is not guarded by an MP
but not to:
MPs only guard POWs
equivalent to:
All MPs only guard a POW
or
There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW

which is essentially what you are saying

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[ToasterMonkey]

"There exists no MP which is doing something else except guard a POW"

That's not what I'm saying, but how else could the original poster come to the conclusion that Guarded by MPs, therefore, they are POWs?

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cycoj]

But that's what "MPs only guard POWs" means they don't do anything else apart from guarding MPs.
I think the original poster thinks that POWs have to be guarded by MPs. I don't know if this is true, but I seriously doubt it. I think a lot of times POWs are just guarded by normal soldiers. So I don't think the argument was right, because I disagree with the premise. I just pointed out a logical fallacy in your argument.

A similar thing is quite common especially among politicians btw, in German it's called "Umkehrschluss", e.g. if we know that: "if laws are inadequate criminals get off the hook" a lot of politicians make "criminals get off the hook therefore the laws are inadequate and we need new ones" out of this. This argument is logically wrong, because if A then B does not imply if B then A. You see it in political discussions all the time and I really don't understand why the people don't point out this problem more often.

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[ToasterMonkey]

Neither one of us can really be right because there is no valid way to come to the conclusion that because someone is being guarded by MPs, they are a POW.
The OP is wrong though... or at least there is no direct relationship between MPs and POWs as he suggests.

Thanks for the interesting debate though. The OP set us both up for this.

His analogy just doesn't make any sense at all :\
MP:POW::Guard:???

He left us with a huge gap in his reasoning that POWs are related to MPs somehow.
(1) Guarded by MPs
(n) ???, the "likely argument that follows" as he put it
_____________________
Therefore, they are POWs

(n) could be MPs only guard POWs
not correct, as I attested to.
or even POWs are those that are guarded by MPs
not correct either
or.. I give up. There is no way to conclude that someone is a POW only because he's guarded by an MP.

Let's go hunt down other fallacious arguments on Slashdot :)

BTW, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion..
if guarded by MP then POW. Logical equivalence gives: All POW are guarded by MP
(1) Guarded by MP
__________________
Therefore, they are POW

There's not enough info to make any more conclusions. All we can do is find another premise that might make it correct, and "All POW are guarded by MP" is itself wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong though

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cycoj]

I agree with you, I don't think there is a relationship between MPs and POWs. Still interesting discussion :).

BTW, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion..
if guarded by MP then POW. Logical equivalence gives: All POW are guarded by MP
(1) Guarded by MP
__________________
Therefore, they are POW

OUCH I just did the same mistake I complained about. Jeez I shouldn't post that late at night and especially not while doing two other things at the same time. (I'm a terrible multitasker)

It should be if POW then guarded by MP that is logically equivalent to All POWs are guarded by MPs. Guarded by MP is a necessary condition for being a POW. The way I wrote it it only is a sufficient condition. That really was exactly the thing I was complaining about. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cjHopman]

Actually, original statement:

if guarded by MP then POW
equivalent to original:
If not POW then not guarded by MP
Any guarded by MP are POWs

not equivalent to original:
if POW then guarded by MP
All POW are guarded by MP

Re:Lets play logic games then.

[cycoj]

yup see my comment to toastermonkey.

I still don't know the way to the Mess Hall...

[Chris Brewer]

And still no mention of Code Reds...

Obviously not everything is in the manual...

The real controversy

[Usagi_yo]

Honestly, the changes represent the desire and ability of organizations to change. To drop critical and controversial for different methods.

The real controversy would have been there being no diff between 2001 version and the 2007 version.

Re:The Rules (not quite of Fight Club)

[Loibisch]

The first rule of Guantanamo Bay is - you do not talk about Guantanamo Bay.

The second rule of Guantanamo Bay is - you DO NOT talk about Guantanamo Bay.

Third rule of Guantanamo Bay, someone yells Stop!, goes limp, taps out, the torture is not over.

Fourth rule, always more than two guys to a torture victim.

Fifth rule, one torture victim at a time, fellas.

Sixth rule, no shirt, no shoes, no clothes whatsoever for the victim.

Seventh rule, the torture will go on as long as it has to...and then just a little more to be on the safe side.

And the eighth and final rule, if this is your first night at Guantanamo Bay, you're in for a wild ride.

Scary...

Another disaster for Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Those shitty american troops and their generals in Guantanamo concentration camp, should all be punished, either under american laws or international war crimes court, with a life-long prison sentence because they are torturing those people for years there, without even a proper trial, not to mention that they were caught and suspected for "crimes" outside of US jurisdiction.

Truly comparable to Auschwitz.

Defending the Royals still?

[owndao]

In the US there used to be a tradition whereby ex-Presidents did not criticize current Presidents. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have thrown this out the window, repeatedly criticizing President Bush.
I take this criticism as a sign of hope that someday we'll leave behind the idea that some persons are exempt from criticism (and accountability under law). No more royalty, please.

No prisoner goes hungry at Guantanamo now

[craighansen]

According to this new manual from the Ministry of Love, there is no longer a hunger strike at Guantanamo, it has been renamed Voluntary Total Fast (VTF). Recreation has been replaced by exercise. Mental Health, has been replaced by Behavioral Healthcare which principally involves a great deal of restraint, generously applied to the prisoner.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength"

Re:Exercise prohibited. Personal mail.

[Web Goddess]

Both of you are right. I was wrong, Gitmo is not the worst atrocity of our generation. It's the worst atrocity that I felt directly responsible for, as a voting member of the US. I feel so responsible for this injustice, yet so powerless.

"If they are POWs they need to be treated like POWs."

Yes. We gain nothing, and lose much, by holding prisoners with no regard to Geneva Convention or US prisoner rights such as Habeus Corpus.