IMO, they are neither. Formally they do not comply with definition of POWs, since they were not soldiers of any regular army. They are not regular felons either, since it was absolutely legal in their country to do what they did. But they were involved in commitment of crimes against humanity all the time Taliban was at power.
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 12:55 pm
well, they are a number of things, like NOT WHITE & NOT CHRISTAIN.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 12:55 pm
CI wrote:
Nor are many held in Guantanamo
How do you know? Do you think that the U.S. troops grabbed random people and brought them to Cuba? Then why all the male population of Afghanistan is not there? The ones that were found innocent in course of investigation were released and returned to Afghanistan without much noise (well, no one likes to admit errors).
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 12:58 pm
steissd, FYI, in a democracy, we do not hold people and not allow them to defend themselves against "any" charge made by the government or anybody else. c.i.
0 Replies
mamajuana
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 12:59 pm
You miss the point, steissd. What Ashcroft is trying to do is do away with certain rights, such as a right to question the accuser, the right to an attorney, the right to a fair trial - pretty soon he'll be known as hang 'em high John.
There is a movie called "Dr Strangelove" - in which a character played by Sterling Hayden (a military man) is nuts, and blames everything on the stealing of his vital body fluids. For that we have to nuke them all.
Liberty is right. Under the new, improved Patriot Act I could accuse you of associating with the wrong people, and that would be enough to cart you off, under the name of patriotism. Then you could be held in solitary, without knowing what you were accused of, denied accesss to a lawyer or even a phone call. This could go on for months, under the guise of security reasons. And you could still be sentenced to execution if it were decideed that you could be turned over to a military tribunal. That's what we call loss of freedom, rights, liberty. And Ashcroft thinks this is the proper way to go to defend America. Not Americans.
I don't really know about the article I posted. It was sent to me by someone who works in relief organizations. I've tried tracing it. But what makes me worry are the reports that have been coming out of Guantanamo, and the zeal with which Ashcroft is pursuing our increasing loss of liberty.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:06 pm
By the way, I think I understand the motives of the U.S. authorities to apply the procedure mentioned. They want to prevent recurrence of the O.J. Simpson trial. While O.J. being at large does not pose threat (he is not an ideologically motivated murderer, neither is he a professional criminal), these people are dangerous.
They want to prevent release of dangerous terrorists with help of procedural pettifogery. Judicial systems of the civilized countries have one serious flaw: they permit felons to remain impune when it is impossible to collect enough evidences (and the Army soldiers that captured them were not cops, they are unaware of fine legal nuances). I should remind that it became possible to imprison the known gangster and murderer Al Capone only when he was caught on tax evasion. And these people are much more dangerous than Al Capone, Lucky Luciano and Bugsy Seagal taken together.
0 Replies
McGentrix
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:09 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
steissd, FYI, in a democracy, we do not hold people and not allow them to defend themselves against "any" charge made by the government or anybody else. c.i.
Umm...I don't mean to sound rude, but firstly, we have a Representative Republic and secondly, we do not hold citizens and not allow them to defend themselves against "any" charge made by the government or anybody else.
I highlight citizens because the prisoners in Cuba are enemy combatants, not American citizens and therefore are not eligible to be protected by American law, only International law and theye are being treated fairly under that law.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:11 pm
Mamajuana, I do not think that random people will be grabbed just for someone complaining of their being alleged terrorists. If an information of the kind is received, it will be checked by means of surveillance, wiretapping, etc., and only if it is proven being valid, and appropriate action will be taken. The Secret Service gets every year thousands of applications accusing people in planning to kill a President (not specifically Mr. Bush, but any), and less than two percent of these prove being right. And no one of the people that were falsely accused was arrested. USA is not Stalin's USSR, it is not enough to call the FBI and to tell that a neighbor is a terrorist to get him jailed in the solitary confinement.
0 Replies
mamajuana
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:14 pm
Wishful thinking is nice, but doesn't make it so.
Even Sennsenbrenner, a solid republican, is very disturbed by Ashcroft's proposals, and there seems to be growing unrest in Congress about what this all could mean. Hopefull, that would be democracy in action in our republic.
0 Replies
LibertyD
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:20 pm
If these people are indeed dangerous, then holding them may be wise -- but not without representation. That's one of the things that have seperated the US from communist countries over the years -- everyone has a right to council, regardless of what they are accused of. As far as the FBI investigating my neighbor if I decided to accuse them of terrorism, you *may* be right about them needing wiretaps etc. before arresting them. But do you know whether my accusation would cause their home to be wiretapped or their house to be watched or their bank accounts to be investigated? The way Ashcroft is going, I wouldn't doubt it for a minute.
Here's something I've found interesting about my own bank account, lately. We inherited a little money recently, and after depositing it in the bank, I couldn't write a check at places I shop at every week without being carded. That went on for a couple of months, subsided, and then after receiving our tax refund, the same thing has happened. I've nothing to hide, but it is strange. So it doesn't take much to get the attention of "homeland security" these days, for sure.
McGentrix -- Jose Padillo is a citizen.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:22 pm
Mamajuana, the tactics of terrorists is based on abusing the democratic liberties in the target countries. Why should you permit them to do this? I do not advocate complete abolition of the due process (Heavens forbid), let it remain valid for general crime handling, but the terrorists and their accomplices deserve special treatment.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:22 pm
McGent, I don't think your question rude in any sense of the word However, I would ask you to read the following link, and determine whether we should trust our government to do the right thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1763307.stm
c.i.
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:30 pm
McGentrix, the Supreme Court ruled (1886 i believe) that citizenship is not required to establish rights to a fair trial.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:35 pm
Well, Mr. Farrar, the defense expert quoted in the article to which the link points, expressed with judicial language the things I felt intuitively... His explanations seem rational and coherent.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:44 pm
steissd
Where, please, did Farrar use 'judicial language'?
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:48 pm
IMO, he did it while defining the legal status of the detainees.
0 Replies
McGentrix
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:52 pm
I think this is what he means. I also agree with this statement.
Quote:
Jay C Farrar, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington DC
The individuals currently being held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should not be considered prisoners of war, or criminals under any accepted civil or military definition of those terms.
These "detainees", as they are labelled, skirted international norms and abandoned their rights as sovereign nationals when they chose to participate in the stateless pursuit of terrorism.
The sole purpose for their membership in the terrorist network was to kill and injure non-combatants in a deceitful campaign in pursuit of a goal that violates the international law of war, let alone pertinent national laws.
Their allegiance is to an individual who has declared himself an enemy of the United States, and who has deviously appropriated any grievance he thinks will generate sympathy, to justify the taking of innocent life.
Further, these "detainees" have cleverly moved from one recognised nation state to another in an effort to frustrate and evade international laws that could be invoked to hold them accountable for their actions.
Terrorism is not new to the world, but the methods the civilised world chooses to deal with its henchman have become more sophisticated.
Previous attempts to deal with such individuals as criminals have given them a legal status they are not entitled to hold.
In the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September, the United States has chosen to redefine the status accorded to international terrorists and their non-state sponsors.
The terrorists themselves chose their status, and the international community led by the United States will define it on their behalf in a manner that is compassionate compared to what these people did to their victims.
They are now being treated accordingly, and will be held accountable within the framework they created and chose.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 01:57 pm
Certainly a polical scientist writes such. Anyone with some more knowledge of law would at least refer directly to the appropriate norms, laws, treaties and conventions.
I can't find, btw, any 'terminus technicus', which could be a constituent part of legal jargon.
McGentrix
I've read the link - now, and when it was published.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 6 Jun, 2003 02:30 pm
I do not object the laws that protect citizens' rights. If I were, I would be an admirer of Iran, Syria, N. Korea and other regimes that openly disregard the latter. But the laws cannot be something created once and forever (except the basic laws of human moral, like, for example The Ten Commandments; but these are rather moral imperatives than judicial laws). The circumstances of life change, and this must be reflected in changing the laws (the Republican administration just makes such attempts; the Patriot Act, for example, is not a Presidential Decree, but a new law adopted by the legislative bodies of the USA). If there is a new legal challenge that cannot be efficiently tackled in the framework of the existing laws, the new ones should be adopted to deal with it. By the way, the new ones do not substitute the existing ones (those that deal with general crime, for example), their purpose is to enable the law enforcers to resist the terror threat.
