Neoprog Posner sucks up to Chicoms

[Ian]

If they are POW's there is no issue of guilt or innocence. When the US captured Germans in WW2, they did not go on trial. They went to POW camps and were held there indefinitely. You say they are POWs and the Bush administration, after much hubbub about the subject, agreed to treat them as such.

I'm sure you know all this, but your dogmatic ideology drives you to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.

Dogmatic ideology? I mean - you say the Geneva Convention on POWs applies and then you say that they have to be put on trial. You obviously haven't read the Convention. If they are POWs then they are held indefinitely until the hostilities are over.

Problem is, there will never be a specific date when the hostilities are over. Besides that, treating them like POWs gives them a shred of legitimacy. They shouldn't be held the same way uniformed enemy combatants of a foreign state are held. They may have been captured by the military, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated like criminals. Criminals are tried. And if they're guilty, they're put away for however long the court says is necessary for public safety. I couldn't care less if that means they spend their entire lives sitting in a tiny cell in an orange jumpsuit, but holding them in perpetuity only hurts our reputation and draws more people to their side.

[Coito ergo sum]

If they are POW's there is no issue of guilt or innocence. When the US captured Germans in WW2, they did not go on trial. They went to POW camps and were held there indefinitely. You say they are POWs and the Bush administration, after much hubbub about the subject, agreed to treat them as such.

I'm sure you know all this, but your dogmatic ideology drives you to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.

Dogmatic ideology? I mean - you say the Geneva Convention on POWs applies and then you say that they have to be put on trial. You obviously haven't read the Convention. If they are POWs then they are held indefinitely until the hostilities are over.

Problem is, there will never be a specific date when the hostilities are over. Besides that, treating them like POWs gives them a shred of legitimacy. They shouldn't be held the same way uniformed enemy combatants of a foreign state are held. They may have been captured by the military, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated like criminals. Criminals are tried.

So, what should happen to them? The US can't get anybody to take these guys.

And if they're guilty,

What do you think they're guilty of? If they are POW's the only thing they're guilty of is fighting as soldiers in a war, which is not a crime.

they're put away for however long the court says is necessary for public safety.

It has never been international law that POWs are, qua POWs, put on trial and convicted. They are soldiers fighting a war. Do you think international law requires that POWs be put on trial?

I couldn't care less if that means they spend their entire lives sitting in a tiny cell in an orange jumpsuit, but holding them in perpetuity only hurts our reputation and draws more people to their side.

It has already been pointed out that the countries of origin of these fellas do not want them back. Nobody wants to release them into the United States. Where do you want to release them? Put them in a boat in the ocean?

What would you put them on trial for? Fighting in a war? You say they are POWs. If so, they are Prisoners of War, soldiers. Soldiers do not commit a crime by killing or trying to kill the enemy. Sooooo.....we take Achmad who was picked up in Afghanistan fighting the US in Mazir-i-Sharif, and we bring him to trial. He is accused of taking up arms against the US and shooting at American soldiers. What's he supposed to be convicted of? Being a soldier? Think about it!

[Ian]

If they are POW's there is no issue of guilt or innocence. When the US captured Germans in WW2, they did not go on trial. They went to POW camps and were held there indefinitely. You say they are POWs and the Bush administration, after much hubbub about the subject, agreed to treat them as such.

I'm sure you know all this, but your dogmatic ideology drives you to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.

Dogmatic ideology? I mean - you say the Geneva Convention on POWs applies and then you say that they have to be put on trial. You obviously haven't read the Convention. If they are POWs then they are held indefinitely until the hostilities are over.

Problem is, there will never be a specific date when the hostilities are over. Besides that, treating them like POWs gives them a shred of legitimacy. They shouldn't be held the same way uniformed enemy combatants of a foreign state are held. They may have been captured by the military, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated like criminals. Criminals are tried.

So, what should happen to them? The US can't get anybody to take these guys.

And if they're guilty,

What do you think they're guilty of? If they are POW's the only thing they're guilty of is fighting as soldiers in a war, which is not a crime.

they're put away for however long the court says is necessary for public safety.

It has never been international law that POWs are, qua POWs, put on trial and convicted. They are soldiers fighting a war. Do you think international law requires that POWs be put on trial?

I couldn't care less if that means they spend their entire lives sitting in a tiny cell in an orange jumpsuit, but holding them in perpetuity only hurts our reputation and draws more people to their side.

It has already been pointed out that the countries of origin of these fellas do not want them back. Nobody wants to release them into the United States. Where do you want to release them? Put them in a boat in the ocean?

What would you put them on trial for? Fighting in a war? You say they are POWs. If so, they are Prisoners of War, soldiers. Soldiers do not commit a crime by killing or trying to kill the enemy. Sooooo.....we take Achmad who was picked up in Afghanistan fighting the US in Mazir-i-Sharif, and we bring him to trial. He is accused of taking up arms against the US and shooting at American soldiers. What's he supposed to be convicted of? Being a soldier? Think about it!

Yes, they'd be guilty for that. I never said they should be called POWs, someone else did. They are NOT soldiers fighting in a war. Soldiers are backed by governments. There's the issue of sovereign power. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no legitimacy. We can call their armed combatants criminals all we like.

And we should do that. What's the difference between Khalid Sheik Mohammed and some teenage Yemeni kid captured by the Army in Afghanistan? That one was attacking the military while the other focused on civilians? Bullshit. They're both the same. And neither should be treated like any other nation's soldier.

[Coito ergo sum]

What would you put them on trial for? Fighting in a war? You say they are POWs. If so, they are Prisoners of War, soldiers. Soldiers do not commit a crime by killing or trying to kill the enemy. Sooooo.....we take Achmad who was picked up in Afghanistan fighting the US in Mazir-i-Sharif, and we bring him to trial. He is accused of taking up arms against the US and shooting at American soldiers. What's he supposed to be convicted of? Being a soldier? Think about it!

Yes, they'd be guilty for that. I never said they should be called POWs, someone else did. They are NOT soldiers fighting in a war. Soldiers are backed by governments. There's the issue of sovereign power. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no legitimacy. We can call their armed combatants criminals all we like.

Bingo - enemy combatants. However, traditionally, when you pick up somebody who "has no legitimacy" and "has no status" they are like "spies" or ununiformed persons engaged in espionage or combat against a nation. Those folks have traditionally not been afforded the rights of civilian criminal defendants

And we should do that. What's the difference between Khalid Sheik Mohammed and some teenage Yemeni kid captured by the Army in Afghanistan? That one was attacking the military while the other focused on civilians? Bullshit. They're both the same. And neither should be treated like any other nation's soldier.

I agree they are both the same. As is the guy who the Administration put a hit out on in Pakistan. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ap ... as-bombing Wanted - Dead or a-dead. If that's not a problem, I fail to see how indefinite detention is a problem.

[Ian]

What would you put them on trial for? Fighting in a war? You say they are POWs. If so, they are Prisoners of War, soldiers. Soldiers do not commit a crime by killing or trying to kill the enemy. Sooooo.....we take Achmad who was picked up in Afghanistan fighting the US in Mazir-i-Sharif, and we bring him to trial. He is accused of taking up arms against the US and shooting at American soldiers. What's he supposed to be convicted of? Being a soldier? Think about it!

Yes, they'd be guilty for that. I never said they should be called POWs, someone else did. They are NOT soldiers fighting in a war. Soldiers are backed by governments. There's the issue of sovereign power. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no legitimacy. We can call their armed combatants criminals all we like.

Bingo - enemy combatants. However, traditionally, when you pick up somebody who "has no legitimacy" and "has no status" they are like "spies" or ununiformed persons engaged in espionage or combat against a nation. Those folks have traditionally not been afforded the rights of civilian criminal defendants

That's where we can show the world how civilized we are. It's an opportunity.
They have no legitimacy. Period. They are no more a legitimate army than the Crips and Bloods are legitimate armies. We've been calling them POWs because their numbers are relatively large and they're equipped with a lot of (black market) small arms. But they do not constitute an army just because there's a lot of them and their cause seems to be political.

[Clinton Huxley]

Agree with Ian's point about being civilized. We shouldn't compromise the values "the west" supposedly stands for. I think this is very important. If we compromise, curtail liberties and rights, even for our enemies, they have won a victory.

[Coito ergo sum]

What would you put them on trial for? Fighting in a war? You say they are POWs. If so, they are Prisoners of War, soldiers. Soldiers do not commit a crime by killing or trying to kill the enemy. Sooooo.....we take Achmad who was picked up in Afghanistan fighting the US in Mazir-i-Sharif, and we bring him to trial. He is accused of taking up arms against the US and shooting at American soldiers. What's he supposed to be convicted of? Being a soldier? Think about it!

Yes, they'd be guilty for that. I never said they should be called POWs, someone else did. They are NOT soldiers fighting in a war. Soldiers are backed by governments. There's the issue of sovereign power. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no legitimacy. We can call their armed combatants criminals all we like.

Bingo - enemy combatants. However, traditionally, when you pick up somebody who "has no legitimacy" and "has no status" they are like "spies" or ununiformed persons engaged in espionage or combat against a nation. Those folks have traditionally not been afforded the rights of civilian criminal defendants

That's where we can show the world how civilized we are. It's an opportunity.
They have no legitimacy. Period. They are no more a legitimate army than the Crips and Bloods are legitimate armies. We've been calling them POWs because their numbers are relatively large and they're equipped with a lot of (black market) small arms. But they do not constitute an army just because there's a lot of them and their cause seems to be political.

I don't disagree with you, except that the POW debate was totally politically motivated. The issue was framed to be that if you took the position that Geneva Convention on POWs did not apply to these guys that you were in favor of torturing them. Plus, the far left wanted to make it required that wars be run like criminal investigations. The far left did not agree with the characterization of the conflict as a war in the first place.

Now, we see the hypocrisy of the far left, because they do not make a peep about Guantanomo Bay anymore. It's still open, 15 months after Obama took office, with no real plan to shut it down, and prior to 15 months the demand was for the Bush administration to shut it down immediately. Now, even the moderate left makes excuses for it still being open. And, nobody makes a peep about putting a hit out on an American citizen who is "suspected" of being terrorist - so the Administration thinks you're a terrorist, they can send CIA guys out to slit your throat - not a peep from either the far or the moderate left on that issue. I'm sure you would agree that if the Bush Administration did that, there would be Code Pink, International Answer, Moveon.org and the ACLU up his ass with a telephone pole for doing it. Now, for some reason.....only the soft sound of crickets.

If a CIA guy slits that alleged terrorists throat over in Pakistan, what should happen?

[Coito ergo sum]

Agree with Ian's point about being civilized. We shouldn't compromise the values "the west" supposedly stands for. I think this is very important. If we compromise, curtail liberties and rights, even for our enemies, they have won a victory.

You act like putting guys like this on trial and affording them all the rights of a criminal defendant is the traditional value of the west. It isn't.

Look what the Brits used to do to IRA terrorists/soldiers not too long ago. There are many cases out there about British holding them for long periods of time, hooding them, wall standing and other "harsh interrogation techniques."

The standard being applied to the US now is a new, much more stringent, standard than ever was previously deemed required by the values the west supposedly stands for.

[Ian]

What would you put them on trial for? Fighting in a war? You say they are POWs. If so, they are Prisoners of War, soldiers. Soldiers do not commit a crime by killing or trying to kill the enemy. Sooooo.....we take Achmad who was picked up in Afghanistan fighting the US in Mazir-i-Sharif, and we bring him to trial. He is accused of taking up arms against the US and shooting at American soldiers. What's he supposed to be convicted of? Being a soldier? Think about it!

Yes, they'd be guilty for that. I never said they should be called POWs, someone else did. They are NOT soldiers fighting in a war. Soldiers are backed by governments. There's the issue of sovereign power. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no legitimacy. We can call their armed combatants criminals all we like.

Bingo - enemy combatants. However, traditionally, when you pick up somebody who "has no legitimacy" and "has no status" they are like "spies" or ununiformed persons engaged in espionage or combat against a nation. Those folks have traditionally not been afforded the rights of civilian criminal defendants

That's where we can show the world how civilized we are. It's an opportunity.
They have no legitimacy. Period. They are no more a legitimate army than the Crips and Bloods are legitimate armies. We've been calling them POWs because their numbers are relatively large and they're equipped with a lot of (black market) small arms. But they do not constitute an army just because there's a lot of them and their cause seems to be political.

I don't disagree with you, except that the POW debate was totally politically motivated. The issue was framed to be that if you took the position that Geneva Convention on POWs did not apply to these guys that you were in favor of torturing them. Plus, the far left wanted to make it required that wars be run like criminal investigations. The far left did not agree with the characterization of the conflict as a war in the first place.

Now, we see the hypocrisy of the far left, because they do not make a peep about Guantanomo Bay anymore. It's still open, 15 months after Obama took office, with no real plan to shut it down, and prior to 15 months the demand was for the Bush administration to shut it down immediately. Now, even the moderate left makes excuses for it still being open. And, nobody makes a peep about putting a hit out on an American citizen who is "suspected" of being terrorist - so the Administration thinks you're a terrorist, they can send CIA guys out to slit your throat - not a peep from either the far or the moderate left on that issue. I'm sure you would agree that if the Bush Administration did that, there would be Code Pink, International Answer, Moveon.org and the ACLU up his ass with a telephone pole for doing it. Now, for some reason.....only the soft sound of crickets.

If a CIA guy slits that alleged terrorists throat over in Pakistan, what should happen?

He should be tried like a criminal.

The "far left" (I think you should really re-evaluate that term when talking about American politics) isn't making much noise about Gitmo because, as Obama found out, it's not so easy to simply close the place. It's a process. Are things being done to further it along right now? I'm not sure, and neither are you. The headlines have been about Wall St. regulation, oil spills, etc.

[Clinton Huxley]

Agree with Ian's point about being civilized. We shouldn't compromise the values "the west" supposedly stands for. I think this is very important. If we compromise, curtail liberties and rights, even for our enemies, they have won a victory.

You act like putting guys like this on trial and affording them all the rights of a criminal defendant is the traditional value of the west. It isn't.

Look what the Brits used to do to IRA terrorists/soldiers not too long ago. There are many cases out there about British holding them for long periods of time, hooding them, wall standing and other "harsh interrogation techniques."

The standard being applied to the US now is a new, much more stringent, standard than ever was previously deemed required by the values the west supposedly stands for.

Torturing ira members was wrong. If our values are worth fighting for, they are worth displaying. There's a lot to be said for magnanimity, in my book. If we want to be the good guys, let's be good.

[Coito ergo sum]

He should be tried like a criminal.

Before or after his throat is cut?

The "far left" (I think you should really re-evaluate that term when talking about American politics)

Moveon.org, Code Pink, International Answer and the ACLU are far left, by any definition. It's a political PR tactic to pretend that the US does not have leftists, and to pretend that Obama is a moderate or would not be left if he were in Europe. Obama's beliefs are far left. He may not be in a position to implement them easily because of the strength of the right in the United States. But that doesn't change what his "druthers" are.

isn't making much noise about Gitmo because, as Obama found out, it's not so easy to simply close the place. It's a process.

As Obama found out? Found out? Found OUT???? Only a complete and total ignoramus would not have seen that it was a process.

But, it's not a process that has to take 15 months. It's a prison facility. He can let them all go, if indeed, as the far left claimed 15+ months ago, that most of them were completely innocent and were being held for no reason - you just let them out. Right? Alternatively, move them to another facility. However, of course, the same jokers - I think Reid was one of them - that were lambasting bush to close the place, said "not-in-my-back-yard!"

Are things being done to further it along right now? I'm not sure, and neither are you.

I'm sure that (1) nobody from the Administration has disclosed that there is anything being done, and there is no reason for secrecy on the issue that something is being done, (2) Obama is the one who gave himself a 1 year timetable to close it, and then he just back-burnered the deal, (3) There is no pressure being brought to bear from the groups that were previously lambasting Bush for Gitmo being open - none - nobody cares anymore, because it's Obama, not Bush. It was never about right and wrong - it was about "our guys being in power."

The headlines have been about Wall St. regulation, oil spills, etc.

Yep - no interest in the war crime that is Gitmo anymore.

Remember that? Bush and Cheney were to be tried and convicted of war crimes, one of which was Gitmo itself.

Now, the same crime has been continued for 15 months, and it's not a war crime anymore.

[Feck]

I think Merkins should be careful about mentioning the Geneva convention considering you signed the convention then congress did not ratify it .

[Ian]

The "far left" (I think you should really re-evaluate that term when talking about American politics)

Moveon.org, Code Pink, International Answer and the ACLU are far left, by any definition. It's a political PR tactic to pretend that the US does not have leftists, and to pretend that Obama is a moderate or would not be left if he were in Europe. Obama's beliefs are far left. He may not be in a position to implement them easily because of the strength of the right in the United States. But that doesn't change what his "druthers" are.

Oh please. I don't think Chairman Mao would consider those groups anything but reactionary (the ACLU? Really???). Only a conservative would describe those leftist groups as "far left". What dross.
Obama is far left??? In your dreams. He's moved the American politcal pendulum back from the right swing it took during the first six W. Bush years. That does not constitute him being a leftist. I'd say Britain's new Conservative Party PM is further left than Obama.
Despite his time in the senate, his books, speeches, campaigning and the most intensive vetting process known to mankind, conservative types always seem to know a secret socialist when they see one.

isn't making much noise about Gitmo because, as Obama found out, it's not so easy to simply close the place. It's a process.

As Obama found out? Found out? Found OUT???? Only a complete and total ignoramus would not have seen that it was a process.

But, it's not a process that has to take 15 months. It's a prison facility. He can let them all go, if indeed, as the far left claimed 15+ months ago, that most of them were completely innocent and were being held for no reason - you just let them out. Right? Alternatively, move them to another facility. However, of course, the same jokers - I think Reid was one of them - that were lambasting bush to close the place, said "not-in-my-back-yard!"

Sheesh, you need to get laid or smoke some weed. Of course it was obviously a process. "Found out" was a figure of speech; I was referring to the fact that there was a rather public debate about it a little while back, and then it quieted down. And how would you have gone about doing it any faster?? I think you already provided that answer within your answer.
Why is it quiet at the moment? Surely you understand the concept of priorities in government. If the economy was just rosy tomorrow, if the oil spill was cleaned up, if nobody was still debating health care, I'd say the War on Terror would rise back up in the hierarchy, and we'd hear more noise about the issue. Eventually we will.

Are things being done to further it along right now? I'm not sure, and neither are you.

I'm sure that (1) nobody from the Administration has disclosed that there is anything being done, and there is no reason for secrecy on the issue that something is being done, (2) Obama is the one who gave himself a 1 year timetable to close it, and then he just back-burnered the deal, (3) There is no pressure being brought to bear from the groups that were previously lambasting Bush for Gitmo being open - none - nobody cares anymore, because it's Obama, not Bush. It was never about right and wrong - it was about "our guys being in power."

Yep. That's all it's about. Nothing more. People are nothing but political animals.
Have a look at Politifact.com. There's a difference between a broken promise, a kept promise, a compromise and a delay. Did Obama deliberately break his promise, or are his hands a bit tied over this? Again... you already answered that question!

[Ian]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... on-center/
A little background on the past year in the Gitmo issue.

Against obstacles, Obama still works toward closure
Updated: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas Day, conservatives renewed calls for Obama to abandon his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

"Guantanamo remains the proper place for holding terrorists, especially those who may not be able to be detained as securely in a third country," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader.

After the attack, Obama halted transfers of detainees to Yemen, the country where the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, may have received instructions on how to blow up the aircraft. But White House officials said Obama remains committed to closing the facility, and the plan to close the prison seem to keep moving forward, slowly.

The Obama administration has identified a prison in Thomson, Ill., that it hopes to acquire and renovate for detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, and officials are working out details for funding the plan. The Senate seems amenable to the idea; in November, the Senate rejected a measure to restrict funds for the facility.

Obama said after the inauguration that he hoped to close Guantanamo within one year, and administration officials admit they won't make that deadline. During the campaign, Obama gave himself no such deadline, and we're judging him here on his campaign promises. He said he would close Guantanamo Bay, and concrete steps are being taken to do so. The promise remains In the Works.

[Twiglet]

Coito....

I'm not going to quote all three of your direct posts replying to mine, so this should suffice as a general answer to all of them.

1) The term "enemy combatant" was coined to avoid treating those captured in Iraq fighting US soldiers as PoWs under the Geneva convention. The pretext for making this distinction was very flimsy. Do you know what it was?

"They weren't wearing uniforms".

2) I stated that the US position on human rights has moved far closer to that of China, and was more like Chinas than many other nations. You asked what I meant. For a start, I mean the US and China are 2 of the 28 countries not to have ratified the ICC. 111 have. http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=home The list of holdouts makes for interesting reading to.

Then there are issues such as state detention without trial, permissible under the Patriot Act.

"The Act's provisions include detention without trial for non-citizen terror suspects, surveillance of mobile phone messages and email, and internet tracking. It also empowers the CIA to extend its intelligence-gathering operations from the foreign to the domestic field for the first time.
About one thousand non-citizens of Islamic origin were initially imprisoned under the Act." http://911review.org/Wiki/PatriotAct.shtml sourced from AP.

Issues of torture on home soil, and in occupied occupied iraq mirror similar practices in China.

The difference between US law and existing British law is profound. The UK no longer permits hooding, nor did it when the Afghan or Iraq war were declared. Britain is also a signatory to the ICC, along with most other European nations. That's why Tony Blair and some members of the British Secret Service may one day be held to account for their actions as war criminals, unlike Bush & Co, and their military lawyers who are safe if they remain on US soil. Hence Jay Bybee et al have been cautioned against travelling to Europe.

The scale of state executions in China looks much worse than the US, until comparing statistics for extrajudicial killings in occupied Iraq, not to mention the relative change in life expectancy since occupation which the Lancet estimates has resulted in around 1,000,000 premature deaths. Credible sources have put a lower bound on US extrajudicial killings at at least 30,000. The true figure is probably much higher.


You might want to dispute source on that last point coito, but the earlier ones are matters of record and law, not conjecture. I suggest you independently research the facts by googling "US law" human rights abuse torture, and other reasonable search terms, then conduct the same process for other nations. Then check against amnesty international and other reputable organisations for verification.

Getting fact fixes from Fox is perilous to the legitimacy of knowledge you acquire Coito.

Regarding Arizona law, the specific criticisms levelled at it by amnesty are quoted below:

"Arizona's draconian new law, SB1070, requires anyone who the police "reasonably suspect" of being an "illegal immigrant" to produce papers proving they are here legally. If for any reason you don't show documentation, you'll be criminally prosecuted for trespassing, jailed and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to face deportation.

The Arizona law is an assault on the very notion of human rights because a "reasonable suspicion" cannot be formed without resorting to racial profiling."

Whether similar powers exist elsewhere is hardly a justification. Lots of things are legal in other nations including husbands murdering their wives for being raped. If that was legal in the US, would you be pointing to Saudi Arabia saying "well they do it too?"

Thought not.