"this is a new situation and the government of the United States has been struggling to find an appropriate new way to deal with it."
I think that is a valid point.
It IS difficult.
dlowan wrote:"The US Army did not arbitrarily pick Mr. Habib up off the streets of Kabul and ship him off to Gitmo. He is an al Qaeda operative who admitted to knowing of the 9/11 plot. He was interogated in Afghanistan and was sent to Gitmo so he could pose no further risk to anyone.
"
He says these are false admissions - gained under torture.
Of course he does.
Why the desire to believe him? What is it about him that you find so honorable that you would believe what he says?
nimh wrote:So you mean to say he was essentially a prisoner of war?
YES !!! Almost that in any case. Certainly the situation involves far more similarities with war than with ordinary criminal activity. This is the essence of the issue with which our government has been grappling, and the question is at the very core of the debate - though many here find it convenient to ignore it.
It is a valid point. We consider this to be a war and those captured in combat operations who are not from Afghanistan to be "illegal combatants". This is a new category, for a new situation.
McGentrix wrote:dlowan wrote:"The US Army did not arbitrarily pick Mr. Habib up off the streets of Kabul and ship him off to Gitmo. He is an al Qaeda operative who admitted to knowing of the 9/11 plot. He was interogated in Afghanistan and was sent to Gitmo so he could pose no further risk to anyone.
"
He says these are false admissions - gained under torture.
Of course he does.
Why the desire to believe him? What is it about him that you find so honorable that you would believe what he says?
Sigh. Because the US government has admitted to practices that I consider torture - and that your government also agreed constituted torture until Bush co decided it suited them to change what was admissible.
This, plus repeated evidence of practices all over your detention system that even Bush will not support publicly - including, now, trials of alleged perpetrators.
Plus ongoing allegations from many sources about even worse practices - especially when prisoners are handed over to other Middle eastern countries for stuff that the US will not, it seems, actually do itself.
PS: You know nothing about what I WANT to believe.
Why do you not WANT to believe? There is heaps of evidence.
I won't bother answering your question again, McG.
Either you don't read, or we are just gonna continue to disagree. Doesn't worry me.
georgeob1 wrote:nimh wrote:So you mean to say he was essentially a prisoner of war?
YES !!! Almost that in any case. Certainly the situation involves far more similarities with war than with ordinary criminal activity. This is the essence of the issue with which our government has been grappling, and the question is at the very core of the debate - though many here find it convenient to ignore it.
It is a valid point. We consider this to be a war and those captured in combat operations who are not from Afghanistan to be "illegal combatants". This is a new category, for a new situation.
So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
dlowan wrote:So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
My point. Either they fall under this system (criminal) or that system (prisoners of war). If nothing else - it's a new kind of enemy, neither system quite fits - a
new or adapted legal system should be applied. To use the fact that the suspects don't quite fall under any of the existing arrangements as an excuse to then just not apply
any kind of system or any kind of law, just won't do.
Guantanamo Britons free in weeks
Almost 550 detainees from around 40 countries are held at the base
All four Britons held by the US in Guantanamo Bay will be returned to the UK within weeks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons on Tuesday.
Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, and Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Feroz Abbasi, from London, have been held by the US for almost three years.
They were detained in the Cuban camp as part of the US-led "war on terror".
Mr Straw said the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security.
He said the government had been negotiating the return of the detainees since 2003.
All four families have been informed of their return and have been involved in regular discussions with the government, Mr Straw said.
The detention of these men violated all legal principle
Liberal Democrats foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell
A gesture from Bush to Blair?
But he added: "Once they are back in the UK, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity."
The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, welcomed the return of the four detainees.
But he said there were still "serious questions" both over the possible threat the four pose to the UK, and the treatment they received while detained.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the four had been rescued from a "legal no-man's land".
"Their civil rights were systematically and deliberately abused and they were denied due process."
dlowan wrote:
So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
Good question. There are differences, and I think they wanted to exploit them. The results suggest they overreached themselves, and would have been wiser to do as you suggest.
It is difficult to fight a war under a microscope subject to the criticism of many who don't stop to think of the reality of the situation, the risks involved, and the stakes for all in winning - or losing. I guess the USA id the ultimate 'overdog' (If you will permit this usage) and cannot expect a sympathetic view even from old friends. Difficult as we may be for others to accept, I believe we are a lot better (or less bad) for you than those we are fighting.
georgeob1 wrote:dlowan wrote:So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
Good question. There are differences, and I think they wanted to exploit them. The results suggest they overreached themselves, and would have been wiser to do as you suggest.
Appreciate the second thought there. Always a wavelet of relief every time I see how people can reconsider positions they might in retrospect find untenable, after all - rather than holding on to them for dear life no matter what twists of reason are needed, as is done too often. Reminds me to do so more often myself, as well. You need to a feel a little free or a little confident to do so.
georgeob1 wrote:I guess the USA id the ultimate 'overdog' (If you will permit this usage) and cannot expect a sympathetic view even from old friends.
That is definitely true. "High trees catch a lot of wind", we say here. Seeing how even minor errors in your country's ways affect greater impact elsewhere in the world than even crappy ways of a much smaller country, you're going to always keep that disproportional scrutiny and criticism.
georgeob1 wrote:I believe we are a lot better (or less bad) for you than those we are fighting.
You usually are (or have been at least in roughly the Northern Hemisphere), and certainly are in this case (... even if that in itself doesn't necessarily make the fighting any better an idea
.
georgeob1 wrote:dlowan wrote:
So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
Good question. There are differences, and I think they wanted to exploit them. The results suggest they overreached themselves, and would have been wiser to do as you suggest.
It is difficult to fight a war under a microscope subject to the criticism of many who don't stop to think of the reality of the situation, the risks involved, and the stakes for all in winning - or losing. I guess the USA id the ultimate 'overdog' (If you will permit this usage) and cannot expect a sympathetic view even from old friends. Difficult as we may be for others to accept, I believe we are a lot better (or less bad) for you than those we are fighting.
Fair enough - but - I do think some of the mistakes made here - like the status of prisoners thing, that sensible force in your own administration fought hard against - are so egregious that they do deserve criticism. And yes, it IS difficult, as I said.
I guess, too, that overdogs have a habit of turning savage. We're watchin' yer.
This isn't the thread to fight the decision to go to war on!
Thanks for your kind acknowledgments.
War and statecraft are difficult things; leadership in these areas is even more difficult. It is always easy to see and criticize the warts on the face of the leader, the one in front of the crowd: much harder to find those on the faces of those untested and hidden within it. All choices involve costs and side effects. Anyone in action is doomed to know the costs and bad side effects of the choices he makes. The often worse effects of choices not made and alternatives rejected are often overlooked. Critics need know only one thing: leaders must know (or guess) everything. This is the central point of my friend, Herman Wouk's wonderful novel, "The Caine Mutiny", and, if you haven't read it, I recommend it to you.
I frequently reconsider my views about these things, and almost any issue important to me. One is exposed to a steady stream of information and must continuously evaluate situations as they unfold - an elementary survival skill in business, war, and life. However, in this case, the only element I find particularly remarkable is the apparent firm belief of many here that those held in Guantanamo are properly considered as criminals and not as more like prisoners of war - this despite the continued assertions by our government that they are "illegal combatants in a war", and of the all-to-obvious facts of their capture. I don't think there is, or has ever been, any defense at all for that obviously incorrect view.
It seems to me that some Europeans and some Australians improperly take a spectator's view of all this. You have a stake in the outcomes here, whether we fight or don't; whether we succeed or fail. We were attacked. If you don't play a constructive role in the reaction you should not expect to be heard. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is a phrase that comes to mind here. Chirac at least is clear in this - he wants to lead, and gives it a try. .His problem is he has the power only to obstruct.
"It seems to me that some Europeans and some Australians improperly take a spectator’s view of all this. You have a stake in the outcomes here, whether we fight or don’t; whether we succeed or fail. We were attacked. If you don’t play a constructive role in the reaction you should not expect to be heard. “Lead, follow, or get out of the way” is a phrase that comes to mind here. Chirac at least is clear in this – he wants to lead, and gives it a try. .His problem is he has the power only to obstruct. "
Er - we are in Iraq.
Every criticism I mount re the USA in going in, I also mount against Oz.
I AM a spectator re how you guys treat prisoners.
I can do nothing except argue about it.
We were attacked in Bali too. Shrugs - I just have different ideas on how to manage it - plus, you are ignoring that nobody has attacked you guys for being in Afghanistan - where we went, too - this isn'tjust about getting off on criticising the US.
It isn't actually as though we are willing spectators - we just can't DO a lot about what the US decides to do - except apply moral pressure.
Abu Ghraib inmates recall torture
Spc Charles Graner was accused of being 'primary torturer'
Two Muslim detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison have told a court martial that they were tortured and humiliated by a US soldier on trial for abuse.
A Syrian witness described Specialist Charles Graner as Abu Ghraib's "primary torturer", and said he was force-fed pork and alcohol, against Islamic law.
Another inmate, forced to masturbate in public, said US troops tortured Iraqis "like it was theatre for them".
Spc Graner, who denies all charges, faces up to 17 years in jail.
He is the first soldier to face court martial over the images of prisoner abuse at the Baghdad jail that caused worldwide outrage.
Spc Graner denies charges of assault and conspiracy to mistreat prisoners.
His court martial is being held at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas.
'Laughing and whistling'
Hussein Mutar, an Iraqi sent to Abu Ghraib for stealing a car, was forced to masturbate in public and piled onto a pyramid of naked men.
Mr Mutar, who struggled throughout his video testimony, compared his jailers to the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"This changed the perspective on all Americans. [Even] Saddam did not do this to us," he said.
"I couldn't believe in the beginning that this could happen, but I wished I could kill myself because no one was there to stop it.
"They were torturing us as though it was theatre for them."
Syrian fighter Amin al-Sheikh, in a video deposition recorded last month in Iraq, admitted going to the country in 2003 to fight US-led forces, and being involved in a shootout with guards at Abu Ghraib after being given a gun by an Iraqi guard.
After being injured in the gun fight, he said, he was taken back to his cell, where Spc Graner jumped on his wounded leg and hit his wounds with a metal baton.
He said the military policeman made him eat pork and drink alcohol, violating his religion, and made him insult the Islamic faith.
He said a Yemeni detainee had told him that Spc Graner made him "eat from the toilet".
Asked if the defendant appeared to enjoy abusing prisoners, Mr Sheikh said: "He was laughing, he was whistling, he was singing."
'Face of the enemy'
The soldier's defence argues that the abuse was sanctioned by his superiors, and defence lawyer Guy Womack said Mr Sheikh's testimony helped Spc Graner.
"It was the face of the enemy. It's very clear that he hates America," he said.
The defence is due to begin its case on Wednesday, when Spc Graner is scheduled to testify.
Three guards from Spc Graner's 372nd Military Police Company have pleaded guilty to abuse charges.
Three others, including Private Lynndie England, who also features in photos from Abu Ghraib and with whom Spc Graner has since had a child, are awaiting trial.
This is the result of the failure of leadership, but nobody in high command or this administration will pay any consequence.
georgeob1 wrote:We are dealing with hundreds of prisioners, not thousands here. In the UK during the early '80s there were easily that many incarcerated without trial in the Maize prision in Belfast. I don't claim to know how many are currently in preventive detention in France, but the number is likely in the hundreds.. The attacks on 9/11 in New York and those that preceeded them carried our over the preceeding eight years were indeed a serious provocation - the only comparable events in Western Europe were the IRA struggle in Northern Ireland and the conflict in France during and after the colonial war in Algeria. In every case these gfovernments took equivalent actions to those so loudly being criticized here. Surely you know all this, Walter.
I did a bit of research now (offline).
Since September 11, in the UK 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism.
Only 17 have been found guilty, mostly with no connection to Islamist groups and
none who were proven members of al Qaeda.
And I'm still eager to know:
if Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has his administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?
dlowan wrote:So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
You didn't ask me, but I guess that this reflects a bug in the way the Bush administration thinks about its job, and which it considers one of the features that make it attractive.
Remember that when Bush first came into office, he made a lot of the fact that he was the first president with an MBA, and who had no previous experience with the way things are done in Washington. I distinctly remember one of his weekly addresses, given sometime between January 20 and September 11 2001, where he announced that he would use his business skills to make government more efficient and more responsive. Problem is, if you think of government as a business and of the president as its CEO, you will also see international law as just another annoying impediment on your freedom to decide things -- much like a CEO may think of the tax code and all those tedious micro-regulations CEOs have to deal with. You won't think of it as something that is your job to uphold, and that maybe you should even exceed its literal requirements to create goodwill. Instead, you will tell the government's legal experts that they are now the equivalent of corporate lawyers, that it is now their job to probe for loopholes in international law, then exploit them as best they can.
Strange as it seems, there are some things that traditional Washington insiders do right, and maverick MBAs don't get. More generally, you don't necessarily improve government by pretending it's a business
Thomas wrote:dlowan wrote:So why has your government not considered them to have the benefits of the Geneva Convention, if they are prisoners of war?
You didn't ask me, but I guess that this reflects a bug in the way the Bush administration thinks about its job, and which it considers one of the features that make it attractive.
Remember that when Bush first came into office, he made a lot of the fact that he was the first president with an MBA, and who had no previous experience with the way things are done in Washington. I distinctly remember one of his weekly addresses, given sometime between January 20 and September 11 2001, where he announced that he would use his business skills to make government more efficient and more responsive. Problem is, if you think of government as a business and of the president as its CEO, you will also see international law as just another annoying impediment on your freedom to decide things -- much like a CEO may think of the tax code and all those tedious micro-regulations CEOs have to deal with. You won't think of it as something that is your job to uphold, and that maybe you should even exceed its literal requirements to create goodwill. Instead, you will tell the government's legal experts that they are now the equivalent of corporate lawyers, that it is now their job to probe for loopholes in international law, then exploit them as best they can.
Strange as it seems, there are some things that traditional Washington insiders do right, and maverick MBAs don't get. More generally, you don't necessarily improve government by pretending it's a business
That is very interesting - and something that fits in with the reading I have been doing about the necons - especially about Rumsfeld in the Pentagon - and how he forced through his ideas about all sorts of things, against most considered advice (eg invading Iraq, the troop complements, the legal status of captured people etc., ignoring people with knowledge about the Middle east and so on).
Re your apology comment, Georgeob, I think your flexibility has actually turned this thread into a very interesting dialogue between people with differing views, rather than the usual yah boo sucks stuff.
