US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Foxfyre wrote:

So Thomas, you are in charge of hard line terrorists coming into GITMO and you have reason to believe they have information that could help save hundreds of lives and more. What do you tell them about how they can expect to be treated while in captivity?

We are not talking policy or practice here. We are talking propaganda. What do you tell them?

a) I will never be in charge of anything in Guantanamo Bay because
b) I won't just assume someone is a hard-line terrorist. Unless he got convicted of this charge in a decent trial, everyone is innocent as far as I am concerned. and since the information extracted by torture is extremely unreliable,
c) I will ask him like a police officer would ask a potential witness. I will not torture the guy because the information extracted this way can endager much more than hundreds of lives. The war on Iraq, for example, was justified faulty intelligence, some of it extracted under coercion in Egyptian prisons. So far that war has cost several ten thousands of lives.

I think until the anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush crowd is able and willing to answer the question,

But the idea that known terrorists should be assured that they will be treated with the utmost respect and deference and need have no concern of any kind for their health, safety, or comfort no matter what they've done or what they intend to allow to happen, just seems to me to be, well, unreasonable, misguided, etc. etc. etc.

Foxfyre wrote:

But the idea that known terrorists should be assured that they will be treated with the utmost respect and deference and need have no concern of any kind for their health, safety, or comfort no matter what they've done or what they intend to allow to happen, just seems to me to be, well, unreasonable, misguided, etc. etc. etc.

Then why don't you start by giving the folks in Guantanamo Bay a jury trial? The people in there, just like everyone else, are to be presumet innocent until proven guilty of a crime.

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But the idea that known terrorists should be assured that they will be treated with the utmost respect and deference and need have no concern of any kind for their health, safety, or comfort no matter what they've done or what they intend to allow to happen, just seems to me to be, well, unreasonable, misguided, etc. etc. etc.

Then why don't you start by giving the folks in Guantanamo Bay a jury trial? The people in there, just like everyone else, are to be presumet innocent until proven guilty of a crime.

I think perhaps, Thomas, you misread FF's comment.

No misreading by Thomas. Fox's post is clear; she declares all the prisoners as terrorists without any rights.

Everybody who has been convicted of a terrorist crime in a regular jury trial is a known terrorist. As a consequence they will either be executed or rot in jail for a very long time, as well they should. They won't, in Foxfyre's words, be "assured that they will be treated with the utmost respect and deference".

If they are not convicted of a terrorist crime in a regular jury trial, they are not "known terrorists". They are presumed innocent as far as I am concerned. That's why I suggested to Foxfyre to give everyone in Guantanamo Bay a jury trial to start with. In your view, Tico, how does that misread what Foxfyre said?

ican711nm wrote:

In a subsequent post, I told you it was John McCain himself who was the source and I told you the information John McCain said the North Vietnamese extracted from him.!

More precisely, McCain, as selectively quoted by a blogger who didn't quote the parts that would have contradicted his quote. But if that's the best you can do, fair enough.

Thomas wrote:

Everybody who has been convicted of a terrorist crime in a regular jury trial is a known terrorist. As a consequence they will either be executed or rot in jail for a very long time, as well they should. They won't, in Foxfyre's words, be "assured that they will be treated with the utmost respect and deference".

If they are not convicted of a terrorist crime in a regular jury trial, they are not "known terrorists". They are presumed innocent as far as I am concerned. That's why I suggested to Foxfyre to give everyone in Guantanamo Bay a jury trial to start with. In your view, Tico, how does that misread what Foxfyre said?

Well, there are "known terrorists" that have not been convicted of a terrorist crime in a regular jury trial. But FF did not place the requirement of a jury conviction upon the label "known terrorist" in her post, and I do not believe that was her intent.

The misreading I believe you are doing -- I stress that because perhaps it is I who is misreading, and FF will have to straighten me out -- is inserting the requirment of a jury trial conviction. Her comment makes little sense to me if one reads it in that light.

I understand you have suggested that the Gitmo detaininees should receive a jury trial, but I don't see how your expression of your belief in that regard is responsive to FF's post that she does not believe it is a good idea for "known terrorists" to be afforded the knowledge they will receive one. She said, in effect, such "known terrorists" should not be assured they will be treated with respect and deference. She thinks they should have concerns for their health, safety and confort. Thus, your response, "Then why don't you start by giving the folks in Guantanamo Bay a jury trial?" makes little sense if you are reading her remark the same way I am. After all, giving them the jury trial will do nothing to further what she is advocating.

...
If they are not convicted of a terrorist crime in a regular jury trial, they are not "known terrorists". They are presumed innocent as far as I am concerned. That's why I suggested to Foxfyre to give everyone in Guantanamo Bay a jury trial to start with. In your view, Tico, how does that misread what Foxfyre said?

...
There is zero evidence that the Bush administration condones, orders, authorizes, or expects torture of anybody. But there is no reason to telegraph to terrorists that they can expect VIP treatment in U.S. custody.

"Known terrorist" is an oxymoron. Without any right to defend oneself and legal representation against criminal charges, the issue is moot. It contradicts the purpose of our legal system that states we are innocent until proven guilty. The president nor anybody in his administration has the right to be judge, jury, and prosecutor within our system of justice.