AP Probe: 'Dangerous' Former Gitmo Inmates Set Free Abroad (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

So here are what the Bush administration called the most dangerous terrorists in the world, who were kidnapped, sent to Gitmo, then after a time, sent to other nations around the world. Almost all of them have now been set free, with no charges against them, and no evidence to warrant holding them.

Which brings us to the reason we kidnapped them in the first place, held them without trial, held them without presenting any evidence to hold them, denied them access to attorneys, denied them access to courts of law, denied them access to members of their own families, denied them habeas corpus, and in some cases, tortured them in attempts to extract information.

I am waiting for any answer which could justify these actions done by America - This is still America, isn't it? Or is it?

Article is here.

 

[wonder cow]

I am waiting for any answer which could justify these actions done by America - This is still America, isn't it? Or is it?

Most of the time in our country we have at least a handful of strong, prominent and respected leaders that will defend our basic principals. The last few years have revealed to me that we just don't have that right now.

Maybe we will learn something from all of this? We are suppose to be the example for the rest of the world to follow.

 

[RightinNYC]

So here are what the Bush administration called the most dangerous terrorists in the world, who were kidnapped, sent to Gitmo, then after a time, sent to other nations around the world. Almost all of them have now been set free, with no charges against them, and no evidence to warrant holding them.

Which brings us to the reason we kidnapped them in the first place, held them without trial, held them without presenting any evidence to hold them, denied them access to attorneys, denied them access to courts of law, denied them access to members of their own families, denied them habeas corpus, and in some cases, tortured them in attempts to extract information.

I am waiting for any answer which could justify these actions done by America - This is still America, isn't it? Or is it?

Article is here.

Hypothetical -

Let's say the military, while out patrolling for members of the Taliban and other assorted terrorists, comes across a group of enemy fighters armed with weapons. This group engages in a short firefight with the US forces before surrending after some of their group is killed. They are captured, and admit to being members of the Taliban. The soldiers who have captured them believe that they have other valuable intelligence that they are not releasing, and that they have been involved with al-Qaida.

What should be done?

 

[PeteEU]

Its not exactly "breaking news". Its a well known fact in Europe that a very large part of the "detainees" released from Gitmo to Europe have been released very fast after arriving back here, because there was nothing to hold them on. Only France has held on to some, because they have laws to do so with. Its also been well documented the Afganistan claim, that quite a lot of the detainees were in fact people who were "turned in" by rivals of some sort and never had any connection to the Taliban or Al Q. That happens in a poor country where there is a bounty on Taliban or Al Q people.

Hypothetical -

Let's say the military, while out patrolling for members of the Taliban and other assorted terrorists, comes across a group of enemy fighters armed with weapons. This group engages in a short firefight with the US forces before surrending after some of their group is killed. They are captured, and admit to being members of the Taliban. The soldiers who have captured them believe that they have other valuable intelligence that they are not releasing, and that they have been involved with al-Qaida.

What should be done?

And you believe that all people sent to Gitmo were in "firefights" or "captured in hostile areas"? And this is dispite the evidence of the opposite from many former detainees at Gitmo? But to your hypothetical.

Taliban - Are they the legit goverment forces of the country before the invasion? Personally I say they are and hence under the geneva convention. That the US has said they are not, is disturbing. Does this mean that we can just go around and say "we dont reconize the goverment, and hence its troops can be treated with no regard to the Geneva Convention?

As for the Terrorists.. I agree any true terrorist should be treated accordingly with. However, how do you define or even point out a terrorist? Sure if the guy is fireing at you and is not part of the Taliban.. but how else? The situation in Afganistan during and after the invasion where hundreds of "terrorists" were rounded up, based on direct contact but also via "people turning them in" has shown that espcially during the later, that people settled old scores, gained economic, political or family power with the help of the US forces.. by simply painting some rivial as Taliban or Al Q.

This is why, the rule of law, the very thing that seperates Us from the terrorists, must be kept and preserved, even for terrorists, rapists, and child molesters.

 

[RightinNYC]

Its not exactly "breaking news". Its a well known fact in Europe that a very large part of the "detainees" released from Gitmo to Europe have been released very fast after arriving back here, because there was nothing to hold them on. Only France has held on to some, because they have laws to do so with. Its also been well documented the Afganistan claim, that quite a lot of the detainees were in fact people who were "turned in" by rivals of some sort and never had any connection to the Taliban or Al Q. That happens in a poor country where there is a bounty on Taliban or Al Q people.

This is true.

And you believe that all people sent to Gitmo were in "firefights" or "captured in hostile areas"? And this is dispite the evidence of the opposite from many former detainees at Gitmo?

I'm not claiming that, I'm just posing a hypothetical.

But to your hypothetical.

Taliban - Are they the legit goverment forces of the country before the invasion? Personally I say they are and hence under the geneva convention.

You think they are? Despite the fact that only 3 nations in the entire world recognized them as such? I wouldn't necessarily consider Hamas a legit government force, but at least they were elected.

That the US has said they are not, is disturbing. Does this mean that we can just go around and say "we dont reconize the goverment, and hence its troops can be treated with no regard to the Geneva Convention?

No, the US and 189 other countries said they were not.

As for the Terrorists.. I agree any true terrorist should be treated accordingly with. However, how do you define or even point out a terrorist?

How do you?

Sure if the guy is fireing at you and is not part of the Taliban.. but how else? The situation in Afganistan during and after the invasion where hundreds of "terrorists" were rounded up, based on direct contact but also via "people turning them in" has shown that espcially during the later, that people settled old scores, gained economic, political or family power with the help of the US forces.. by simply painting some rivial as Taliban or Al Q.

So, if the person is determined to be a terrorist, what should be done with them?

This is why, the rule of law, the very thing that seperates Us from the terrorists, must be kept and preserved, even for terrorists, rapists, and child molesters.

I'm not disagreeing here, I'm just asking you how you distinguish between terrorist and non-terrorist, and what should be done with each party.

 

[danarhea]

This is true.



I'm not claiming that, I'm just posing a hypothetical.



You think they are? Despite the fact that only 3 nations in the entire world recognized them as such? I wouldn't necessarily consider Hamas a legit government force, but at least they were elected.



No, the US and 189 other countries said they were not.



How do you?




So, if the person is determined to be a terrorist, what should be done with them?



I'm not disagreeing here, I'm just asking you how you distinguish between terrorist and non-terrorist, and what should be done with each party.

You raised some good points, but I would especially like to address the last one. Considering the fact that we kidnapped a LOT of innocent people and deprived them of their freedom, this says a lot about the way we go about taking people into custody, and a lot about how we as a nation practice (or not practice) what we preach to other nations.

Should we be fighting the war on terror in the first place? Absolutely. Should we leave it to just one branch of government without any oversight whatsoever? Absolutely not. This is where Congress and the courts should be actively involved. Unfortunately, Congress abrogated its own Constitutional responsibility, and this is why I blame Democrats as well as Republicans for this unfortunate situation.

The only reason there is still an America today is because of our system of checks and balances which our forefathers had the foresight to include in the founding of our Republic, and whenever one branch of government shirked its responsibility, America came closer to losing everything it stood for. However, the people have always eventually prevailed, during the time in which FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court, during the McCarthy era, during Nixon's presidency, and yes, during the reign of the Neoliberals who hijacked the Republican party, and made its own rules the law of the land, thus circumventing the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, as shown by the results of the last election, it was the people, not Congress, which has provided the oversight, and the scary thought is, what if, one day, the people are not there to rescue America from those who would sell it out? That is a scary thought indeed. Congress MUST do its job. If not, then every Republican and Democrat in Congress needs to be fired at the ballot box.

 

[RightinNYC]

You raised some good points, but I would especially like to address the last one. Considering the fact that we kidnapped a LOT of innocent people and deprived them of their freedom, this says a lot about the way we go about taking people into custody, and a lot about how we as a nation practice (or not practice) what we preach to other nations.

Should we be fighting the war on terror in the first place? Absolutely. Should we leave it to just one branch of government without any oversight whatsoever? Absolutely not. This is where Congress and the courts should be actively involved. Unfortunately, Congress abrogated its own Constitutional responsibility, and this is why I blame Democrats as well as Republicans for this unfortunate situation.

The only reason there is still an America today is because of our system of checks and balances which our forefathers had the foresight to include in the founding of our Republic, and whenever one branch of government shirked its responsibility, America came closer to losing everything it stood for. However, the people have always eventually prevailed, during the time in which FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court, during the McCarthy era, during Nixon's presidency, and yes, during the reign of the Neoliberals who hijacked the Republican party, and made its own rules the law of the land, thus circumventing the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, as shown by the results of the last election, it was the people, not Congress, which has provided the oversight, and the scary thought is, what if, one day, the people are not there to rescue America from those who would sell it out? That is a scary thought indeed. Congress MUST do its job. If not, then every Republican and Democrat in Congress needs to be fired at the ballot box.

This is all well and good, but I'm trying to get at the logistics here. If, as you seem to argue, Congress and the courts should be more involved in the war on terror, how? How should the day to day front line operations be different?

Again, how is non-terrorist distinguished from terrorist, and what should be done with each?

 

[PeteEU]

This is true.

Shock we agree on something :lol:

You think they are? Despite the fact that only 3 nations in the entire world recognized them as such? I wouldn't necessarily consider Hamas a legit government force, but at least they were elected.

I dont see a choice frankly. If we dont allow the taliban forces rights under the Geneva Convention then we will as we basicly have, opened a can of worms. As it stands now, one can just say "I dont reconize the goverment of X nation, hence I dont have to treat the troops of said goverment under the Geneva Convention. Personally I did not reconize the Taliban, but mostly because of thier brutality, stupidity and backwards thinking.. they did after all "win" a civil war mostly, and that gave them almost full control over the country and the capital... like it or not.

No, the US and 189 other countries said they were not.

Acutally, only the US as far as I know, have clearly stated that the Taliban forces were not to get the protection under the Geneva Convention. Got any links for other nations?

How do you?

To define a terrorist. Its always been hard, and has become even more blurry since 9/11.

But a person who inflicts terror on a population because of political reasons should be a terrorist, but even that definition needs work.... as what is terror? Does it include fear or just the "death part"? I mean a nut job can inflict fear on the population by walking down the street in his underweat, and even shout "i hate bush", but does that make him a terrorist or just a nut job in need of some hospital treatment?

But that person is a criminal pure and simple and most if not all actions a terrorist does can be dealt with legally via the normal justice system. Thats what we did before 9/11.

A person blows himself up or places a bomb to attack a military target and civilians are killed also? Terrorists or not?

A person blows himself up or places a bomb with the intent of killing civlians? Terrorist or not?

A person has sympathies for people labeled as terrorists? Is he a terrorist also now?

Where do we draw the line? As I see it now, the line is very very blurry, so blurry that someone pointing the finger at you and accusing you of being a terrorist is enough to get you arreseted or "kidnapped".

However I also think its a police/law inforcement matter, not a military matter. This is if we talking domestic and in countries that are under the rule of law.

If we talk about countries that lack this, then we got another problem. What rules do we apply to said country, countries we may have invaded/conquered/libitrated? Do we try to inforce the same principles we use at home (and hence show some consitancy) or do we just beat the crap out of people and make it up as we go along? It seems saddly the latter is the norm these days. What do we do with people who oppose our occupation of thier country... label them terrorists or insurgents? Do we kill them on sight, or attempt to bring them in from the cold?

And what rules do we apply to countries that support terrorists (once we have defined them)?

So, if the person is determined to be a terrorist, what should be done with them?

Through the legal system like a murder, rapist or tax dodger. If there lacks laws on the subject, then make them, as long as they are within the normal paramateres of the law.

I'm not disagreeing here, I'm just asking you how you distinguish between terrorist and non-terrorist, and what should be done with each party.

Already answered. Nice to have a good discussion instead of name calling btw

 

[danarhea]

This is all well and good, but I'm trying to get at the logistics here. If, as you seem to argue, Congress and the courts should be more involved in the war on terror, how? How should the day to day front line operations be different?

Again, how is non-terrorist distinguished from terrorist, and what should be done with each?

This is a no-brainer. Whether someone is a terrorist or not should be presented in a court of law, with evidence to support the accusation. Otherwise, if I were a powerful enough member of government, and did not like you, for whatever reason, I could claim that you, for instance, are a terrorist and simply make you disappear.

 

[RightinNYC]

Shock we agree on something :lol:

It's possible:2razz:

I dont see a choice frankly. If we dont allow the taliban forces rights under the Geneva Convention then we will as we basicly have, opened a can of worms. As it stands now, one can just say "I dont reconize the goverment of X nation, hence I dont have to treat the troops of said goverment under the Geneva Convention. Personally I did not reconize the Taliban, but mostly because of thier brutality, stupidity and backwards thinking.. they did after all "win" a civil war mostly, and that gave them almost full control over the country and the capital... like it or not.

Acutally, only the US as far as I know, have clearly stated that the Taliban forces were not to get the protection under the Geneva Convention. Got any links for other nations?

I'm posing a hypothetical here, so I'll refrain from any of my views and just cite some facts.


190 of the world's countries refused to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government. The Taliban was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions

According to the Third Geneva Convention, when there is a conflict between a signer and a non-signatory, the signer remains bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.

"...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

According to the same article, regardless of whether an individual is technically a prisoner of war under the conventions, they "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

the Fourth Geneva Convention says this:

Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

It then goes on to say:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

To define a terrorist. Its always been hard, and has become even more blurry since 9/11.

But a person who inflicts terror on a population because of political reasons should be a terrorist, but even that definition needs work.... as what is terror? Does it include fear or just the "death part"? I mean a nut job can inflict fear on the population by walking down the street in his underweat, and even shout "i hate bush", but does that make him a terrorist or just a nut job in need of some hospital treatment?

But that person is a criminal pure and simple and most if not all actions a terrorist does can be dealt with legally via the normal justice system. Thats what we did before 9/11.

A person blows himself up or places a bomb to attack a military target and civilians are killed also? Terrorists or not?

A person blows himself up or places a bomb with the intent of killing civlians? Terrorist or not?

A person has sympathies for people labeled as terrorists? Is he a terrorist also now?

Where do we draw the line? As I see it now, the line is very very blurry, so blurry that someone pointing the finger at you and accusing you of being a terrorist is enough to get you arreseted or "kidnapped".

However I also think its a police/law inforcement matter, not a military matter. This is if we talking domestic and in countries that are under the rule of law.

If we talk about countries that lack this, then we got another problem. What rules do we apply to said country, countries we may have invaded/conquered/libitrated? Do we try to inforce the same principles we use at home (and hence show some consitancy) or do we just beat the crap out of people and make it up as we go along? It seems saddly the latter is the norm these days. What do we do with people who oppose our occupation of thier country... label them terrorists or insurgents? Do we kill them on sight, or attempt to bring them in from the cold?

And what rules do we apply to countries that support terrorists (once we have defined them)?

All very good questions. I have no answers for you, and this is what I'm asking people.

How do you define a terrorist? Who decides?

(Note that throughout this thread, the term "terrorist" is used to encompass the class of persons that would generally be considered to be those engaged in efforts to harm US civilians or troops and who are not parts of governments that are party to the GC.)

It seems like in the above section, you're leaning towards having Congress pass laws that would help clarify who is and who is not a terrorist. Do you think that is the way we should go about it?

Through the legal system like a murder, rapist or tax dodger. If there lacks laws on the subject, then make them, as long as they are within the normal paramateres of the law.

What about the cases where, as stated above in the GC, such persons are not entitled to the legal protections offered by our legal system?

Already answered. Nice to have a good discussion instead of name calling btw

Definitely. Finals are over so I'm a lot less tense and a lot more interested in good discussion.:lol:

 

[RightinNYC]

This is a no-brainer. Whether someone is a terrorist or not should be presented in a court of law, with evidence to support the accusation. Otherwise, if I were a powerful enough member of government, and did not like you, for whatever reason, I could claim that you, for instance, are a terrorist and simply make you disappear.

What about in cases where:

a) The military feels strongly that there are significant and tangible risks to allowing an individual the full freedoms that the American legal system offers
b) The prosecution of such a trial would require the publication of significant amount of classified military intelligence
c) Said individual does not qualify for such trials under the provisions of the Geneva Convention
d) Allowing the methods used to capture of an individual to become public knowledge would severely impact the military's attempt to conduct its operations successfully

?

Furthermore, what should be done with said individuals while they are awaiting trial and evidence is being gathered?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
What about in cases where:

a) The military feels strongly that there are significant and tangible risks to allowing an individual the full freedoms that the American legal system offers
b) The prosecution of such a trial would require the publication of significant amount of classified military intelligence
c) Said individual does not qualify for such trials under the provisions of the Geneva Convention
d) Allowing the methods used to capture of an individual to become public knowledge would severely impact the military's attempt to conduct its operations successfully

?

Furthermore, what should be done with said individuals while they are awaiting trial and evidence is being gathered?

In issues that ARE matters of "national security", they cannot (and should not) be made public. If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone of a crime, then you don't arrest them in the first place. I completely reject this entire notion of an "un-lawful combatant", but there is a certain group of enemy combatants that do not deserve all the privliges of a POW. But they do deserve certain basic rights that are common to everyone. Like those inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. As for military operations, they should not be compromised if they are ongoing and in accordance with the Laws of War.

I guess it boils down to that old saying, "Would you rather jail the innocent, or let the guilty go free".

 

[RightinNYC]

In issues that ARE matters of "national security", they cannot (and should not) be made public.

Who decides what is and what isn't a matter of "national security?"

If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone of a crime, then you don't arrest them in the first place.

How does this translate into military raids on terrorist groups?

I completely reject this entire notion of an "un-lawful combatant", but there is a certain group of enemy combatants that do not deserve all the privliges of a POW. But they do deserve certain basic rights that are common to everyone. Like those inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.

Which are? Where is it codified that they deserve these rights?

As for military operations, they should not be compromised if they are ongoing and in accordance with the Laws of War.

So you would agree with the argument that in cases where a military operation or the public safety could be endangered by allowing a captured individual freedom to communicate with the outside world, it is acceptable to prevent him from doing so?

I guess it boils down to that old saying, "Would you rather jail the innocent, or let the guilty go free".

I think it's a lot more complex. I think it's something along the lines of "Would you rather jail those who are presumed guilty by virtue of their actions and who are potential dangers to the safety and security of the nation and its agents or would you rather free those who are not conclusively guilty according to an American standard of conviction that they are not legally entitled to but who may yet be a danger to American safety and security?"

 

[danarhea]

What about in cases where:

a) The military feels strongly that there are significant and tangible risks to allowing an individual the full freedoms that the American legal system offers
b) The prosecution of such a trial would require the publication of significant amount of classified military intelligence
c) Said individual does not qualify for such trials under the provisions of the Geneva Convention
d) Allowing the methods used to capture of an individual to become public knowledge would severely impact the military's attempt to conduct its operations successfully

?

Furthermore, what should be done with said individuals while they are awaiting trial and evidence is being gathered?

If there is probable cause, then arrest them, but also give them access to the court systems.

1) There is a reason we are kidnapping people and sending them offshore. It is an end run around the Constitutional principles America stands for. Makes us look like a bunch of liars when we bandy about the term "human rights" while violating innocent people.

2) We went through what you are talking about already. They were the Alien Act, in which foreigners were put in prison without a trial, on mere suspicion only, and the Sedition Act, in which those who disagreed with the administration were imprisoned without a trial.

We can deal with the War on Terror without not only giving up essential liberties, but also American principles which we proclaim to the world - That America is the beacon of freedom and fairness to ALL. If we choose any other path, then the terrorists have already won the war, and the America which our forefathers created will have been destroyed, not by bombs, but by fear, not by hatred, but by ignorance, and not by any enemy, but by ourselves. In that day, those who hate America will surely celebrate its passing, and we will have no reason to complain - We deserved what became of us.

 

[RightinNYC]

If there is probable cause, then arrest them, but also give them access to the court systems.

Are you saying that you support giving full access to the American legal system and all the benefits that entails to terrorists captured by the military in the hills of Afghanistan or Iraq?

1) There is a reason we are kidnapping people and sending them offshore. It is an end run around the Constitutional principles America stands for. Makes us look like a bunch of liars when we bandy about the term "human rights" while violating innocent people.

Do you see a difference between these 4 cases? If so, what protections should each be offered?

1) American citizen, accused of terrorism
2) Foreign national illegally in the US, accused of terrorism
3) Foreign national captured in a non-combat setting, accused of terrorism
4) Foreign national captured in a combat setting, accused of terrorism

2) We went through what you are talking about already. They were the Alien Act, in which foreigners were put in prison without a trial, on mere suspicion only, and the Sedition Act, in which those who disagreed with the administration were imprisoned without a trial.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were overturned not because they were unconstitutional on their face, but because they designated absolutely no framework for enforcement, and were overly broad.

It's worth noting that the Sedition Act of 1918, a much more specific version of the Act of 1798, was upheld by the courts as Constitutional.

We can deal with the War on Terror without not only giving up essential liberties, but also the principles which we proclaim to the world - That America is the beacon of freedom and fairness to ALL. If we choose any other path, then the terrorists have already won the war, and the America which our forefathers created will have been destroyed, not by bombs, but by fear, not by hatred, but by ignorance, and not by the enemy, but by ourselves.

Which liberties are essential, and which are being abrogated?