quote:WASHINGTON — Uncertain about how they will be able to prosecute many of the nearly 300 prisoners detained at a naval base in Cuba, Bush administration officials are considering a new legal doctrine that would allow prisoners to be brought before military tribunals without specific evidence that they engaged in war crimes.
The new approach would make it an offense to have been a senior member or officer of a Qaeda unit that was involved in any of the regular crimes of war, like mistreatment of civilians.
One administration official said the effort came out of increasing uneasiness that the interrogations of the prisoners, who were taken from Afghanistan to the naval base at Gu�ntanamo Bay, had not yielded enough information to charge very many with traditional war crimes.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the questioning was going slowly and the prisoners were largely uncooperative. No one, the official said, has confessed to any atrocity or violation of the laws of war. Nor, the official added, have the interrogators had much success in getting prisoners to provide information that could be used against other captives.
Another official said the new approach would allow military prosecutors to charge some captives even without evidence from witnesses or documents that they committed war crimes.
Interesting twist.... What constitutes 'mistreatment of civilians'? Well, you belong to the XXX Battalion, so you are guilty......
Tonight on the 11 o'clock news, every driver in America is given a speeding ticket, just because they have driven.....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But you wouldn't even need to have evidence that they've driven...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It is vitally important that those of you who consider yourselves 'unbiased' remember that the definition of 'considering' has not yet been changed to 'doing.' People, are still allowed to think about things without being charged with a crime. If you're going to blast people for 'considering'... that's one step away from 'thought police.'
quote:The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the questioning was going slowly and the prisoners were largely uncooperative. No one, the official said, has confessed to any atrocity or violation of the laws of war. Nor, the official added, have the interrogators had much success in getting prisoners to provide information that could be used against other captives.
Of course, if we'd only use the interrogation methods they're used to, we'd get a lot more information... plus, we'd give Amnesty International something legitimate to complain about.
Of course we won't, and that's a Good Thing. We wouldn't want to be as bad as they are, no matter how many nitwits accuse us of already being so. (That's the funny thing, to me. We don't use our opponents' tactics; if we DID use our opponents' tactics, our opponents would be extinct... and yet WE'RE the 'inhumane' ones. Activists... gotta love 'em.)
Hand me the dentist's drill! *BZZZZZZZZZ* Yusuf! Is it safe?
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
Yes, if we were to use those tactics we would get more info..... too bad.....
Although, I do hope that the 'consideration' of this is short lived, it would set a pecedent that could, ultimately, become unbearable for all mankind....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm curious as to how many other questionable courses of action can be safely ignored just because they're only being considered.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yes Rob, it bugs the crud out of me when this bumbling administration considers trying anybody under the "guilty-by-association" rules of law. That's not due process, but due process isn't what Bush wants.
It bothers me when people start going down the road of 'well we could do this cause it's what they are used to' or 'that's how they treat people.'
We ain't them.
Yet.
Maybe that works for you so you can justify some of the things the present administration is doing or some of the things you want to do in you vengence. However, these individuals have been captured in the perma-war on terrorism. They are not on the field of battle, you have to follow rules.
Further, on a basic civil / human rights level, you can't do those things because in that other thread we talked about the fact that we are supposed to believe that all people have a right to basic due process. We do believe in that still don't we?
You know, in the days and weeks following the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. there was great deal of talk about if we changed the way we lived then the terrorists would have won.
Well, an administration holding 200 some odd prisoners or war in what amount to dog-cages...holding them away from U.S. soil** so they have no legal redress to being held indefinitely in what amounts to be dog-cages...and that the same administration is "thinking" about some some of guilt-by-association military trial, well, then the terrorists won because that changes what America believes in in a fundamental way.
You do this guilt-by-association military tribunal and these aren't going to be trials, they are going to be foregone conclusions. And that is what this bumbling administration wants.
And if I'm an activist cause that bothers me, so be it. I wear that proudly.
** The government of the United States has defacto control over these persons and the letter of the law as to access into federal court may not be settled as long as their bodies are in Cuba, but the spirit of our laws, those is addressed by that life, libery ect. creed...that belief that all people are created equal and deserve due process...all that stuff we hold so dear means that what the bumbling administration is doing is wrong.
[ April 23, 2002, 16:13: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:an offense to have been a senior member or officer of a Qaeda unit that was involved in any of the regular crimes of war, like mistreatment of civilians.
Not certain, but isn't this the same rule they used to try various Nazis at Nuremburg and elsewhere? That being an officer involved in a unit committing War Crimes was in itself a crime? The whole "following illegal orders" bit?
If this means that Jay would have thrown a fit at Nuremburg, too...? *ker-plunk*
Re: Considering vs. rights and freedoms: When we start condemning thought, it's already too late.
quote:I'm curious as to how many other questionable courses of action can be safely ignored just because they're only being considered.
Trillions. Ever thought about strangling/hitting someone, even in passing, because they pissed you off? (Me, maybe? I know Snay's considered it...) Ever actually contemplate a homicide, even for a minute? Ever even say to someone 'god, I wish he was dead?"
By the reasoning being expressed by my esteemed colleague, you should be censured and condemned (and possibly imprisoned) for even having the THOUGHT. No matter that a minute later, you thought better of it, or that you never really considered it as a viable option. Or that if you did consider it a viable option, no matter that you dropped it in favor of something more sensible.
We're going to have to arrest the whole human race.
quote:in what amounts to be dog-cages
Pictures, please. I'd like to see the Guantanamo kennels. To compare them to US prisons and past prisoner-of-war camps, in our own and other countries. If you haven't seen the camp, how can you make the statement?
[ April 23, 2002, 16:56: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:Trillions. Ever thought about strangling/hitting someone, even in passing, because they pissed you off?
Well, Robert, if you'd read your signature you'd know that you have the right to stangle or hit someone, "even in passing", as long as you took the consequences for them.
And you should be very well aware (maybe not, being a self proclaimed reactionary) that an administration considering something is not an off-the-cuff thought that you or I might have when we're cut off on the road by some hot-rodding soccer-mom.
You're reaching for straws, Rob. You're mistaking random THOUGHTS with CONTEMPLATED ACTION. The Bush Adminstration isn't thinking "gee, maybe we should try people without evidence..." They're taking the step of determining how to implement that. That's a big difference, too bad you're too blind to see it.
Now, as you mention, I have thought about whacking your head in. Well, you're right. That's just a passing thought when I read some of your posts. "How #^%#^#! stupid is he? I should kill him and make the world a better place!" But no one is suggesting I be punished for that.
On the other hand, if I were parked outside of your house with a baseball bat or a gun waiting for you to show yourself, I could certainly be charged with attempted murder. In this scenario, as in what we're discussing here, a THOUGHT has progressed to something much more.
Please, see the difference. Or explain to me why there is no difference.
quote:Pictures, please. I'd like to see the Guantanamo kennels.
Do a search on google for "CAMP X-RAY PICTURES" ... I got over a thousand hits for it.
[ April 23, 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:a THOUGHT has progressed to something much more.
Please show me where this is true.
'Considering' is still 'considering.' It is not 'doing,' it is not even 'planning.'
There are four levels here:
#1. Conceiving of doing something. "Hey! We could (A)!"
#2. Considering something. "Mm. We could do (A). What might the ups/downs be?"
#3. Planning something. "(A) is a viable option. Let's put detailed plans into place that will make it easier to do, IF we ultimately decide to do it."
#4. Doing something. "We're doing (A)."
There has been no scintilla of evidence presented that even hints that anyone's gone beyond step #2 on this.
Now at step #3, if what you're planning is a crime (still haven't answered the first part of my last post), then you could, maybe, be charged with conspiracy, depending on several factors, (You'll probably learn when something goes from speculation to conspiracy to committ in your police training, should you follow through with that particular 'consideration'), but it isn't necessarily a crime yet.
Okay, I googled Camp X-Ray, and I have to say... not bad, for a hastily-constructed maximun security facility.
I haven't heard whether they've built Radio Range and moved people there yet (see end of article), but when they do, the inmates will have one thing that I don't... A/C.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Yes, Rob, and the fact that they got to Step 2 speaks VOLUMES about the Bush Administration.
I'd be more then happy to see you in Radio Range. Or at the very least see you shut up about what a lousy apartment you have.
[ April 23, 2002, 18:24: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Yes, Rob, and the fact that they got to Step 2 speaks VOLUMES about the Bush Administration.
No it doesn't. You're hysterical. Take some Prozac or something.
It speaks volumes less than all the plans hatched to 'get Castro' during every administration since Kennedy.
It speaks less than the considered (and rejected) option of using nuclear weapons in Korea and Vietnam.
It CERTAINLY speaks less than a certain other organization's recently-reported desire to use a 'dirty nuke' against their enemies.
It even speaks less that the once-considered possibility of using mininukes to help build highways.
Or the Orion starship, which at least reached the design phase. (Step #3)
Or the Zimmermann note.
quote:shut up about what a lousy apartment you have.
Why? Aren't you (as a loyal leftist) outraged that the inmates at Guantanamo are getting better housing and better medical care than the poor in America? (Granted, I have more space, but there are plenty of homeless folks who would be happy to have 8'x8' to call their own, plus three squares a day (of food made to their liking, no less!), A/C, and MASH-level medical care.
On another tack, why doesn't the NYT name a single 'official?' Could it be that they talked to the Assistant Vice Attache in Charge of Duckponds? The title of this thread is appropriate in more than one way.
[ April 23, 2002, 18:44: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Rob, you made a choice as to move into an apartment without A/C. You had options open to you (including living at home, as we've already gone over). If no A/C was such a big deal (this is at least the second time you've brought it up), maybe you should go home? At least we wouldn't hear about how bad you've got it, now would we?
And of course, Rob, nice attempt at distraction again. Of course, it could be President Bush himself speaking on terms of no disclosure. I notice you didn't mention that possibility.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
waahh.. but I have a RIGHT to A/C! waahhh...
I haven't got it bad... relatively.
my point is, neither do the detainees... relatively.
Their living conditions are comparable to what any POW in the last century could expect... provided he was a POW in a civilized, "western" country (I suppose you could try comparing Gitmo to a Vietnamese POW camp, but I doubt you'd get very far. I wouldn't want to imagine what the inside, and the treatment of prisoners, in an AlQaida/Taliban prison camp would be like... what we saw of Iraq's was bad enough.)
No, I wouldn't like it there. But 'liking it' ain't the point.
1. Its livable. 2. It's almost "cushy" by POW standards. 3. It's better than they'd do for us.
quote:I notice you didn't mention that possibility.
Given that it's vastly smaller than the possibility I mentioned, I didn't think it was necessary.
Joseph Ellis. Mike Barnicle. Patricia Smith. Michael Finkel. Janet Cooke.
It happens, don't it?
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Lots of things happen, Rob. Your posts follow a distrubing similarity, up to and including bringing your personal problems in to the thread somehow. Gee, what a surprise.
Hey, listen Rob ... you think its okay to try people without evidence, that's your business. Speaks volumes about you, too.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I don't believe anyone's said it'd be OK, Snay. I do, however, believe that you know that.
I see three possibilities:
1) You actually believe that Rob said what you say he said. You are therefore either not reading the thread, or you are mentally damaged.
2) You are trying to convince others that Rob said what you say he said. You must therefore assume that said others must either not be reading the thread, or be mentally damaged.
3) You're purposefully trying to cause a distraction.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:1) You actually believe that Rob said what you say he said. You are therefore either not reading the thread, or you are mentally damaged.
I believe Rob said that the Administration has had an easily dismissed thought of this subject. This is where we disagree. Rob apparently believes that if someone is gathering material to attack or kill someone, it isn't illegal because "it's just thought." In other words, if he gets cut off in rush-hour traffic, he places the same weight in his quick "I WANA KILL YOU ASSHOLE!" thought that he does to the above.
I believe that if you're in the planning stage of something illegal (even if you're considering whether its possible to commit and/or get away with a crime), you're comitting an illegal act. I believe there's a big difference between this and a quick, off-the-cuff, easily dismissed thought made in the heat of the moment.
Do you disagree? Oh, right, you didn't read the thread at all.
quote:2) You are trying to convince others that Rob said what you say he said. You must therefore assume that said others must either not be reading the thread, or be mentally damaged.
You're the biggest fool I know Omega. Go back and read the thread. I do believe what I said was that there's a different in levels of thought. Some people want to kill someone after being cut off in traffic. This is rarely acted on. On the other hands, some people begin making preperations to kill someone. By the time thought reaches this stage, it is illegal and the people should be arrested and prosecuted for it (some examples of it are conspiracy to commit murder, etc). You are quite clearly devoid of mental capacity.
quote:3) You're purposefully trying to cause a distraction.
I'm trying to cause a distraction? Rob's every post are attempts at distraction: "Oh, they've got AC ... and I DON'T. Oh, it's an unnamed source. Oh, ya'll silly liberals want to make thought illegal!" I'm sure "blasted left-wing media" is coming in a post near you soon.
And you say I'M trying to make a distraction? To quote Mr. T, "FOOL!"
I really don't know what your whole point of posting is, since you don't seem to know point one about what this thread is about. Go back, read, and make a relevent post. You might throw in something along the lines of, "Gee, Rob, that's all interesting but how is your air conditioning relevent to anything?"
Oh. Right. Hah! Al-Queda prisoners have AC. Rob wants AC. Obviously, Rob wants to be at Camp X-Ray. Hopefully, you'll join him. I'll make sure to arrange for you to drop your soap in the shower (bet you don't have to deal with THAT in your apartment, Rob).
[ April 23, 2002, 20:22: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
<the cars>Let the good times roll</the cars>
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Jeff said the following:
listen Rob ... you think its okay to try people without evidence, that's your business
Rob has never stated that he thinks this.
My statement in my previous post stands.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'd prefer that governmenst maybe have the whole "no, we couldn't do that because it'd be wrong" phase kick in between the "thinking about doing something" phase and the "considering it" one (or even before that). Because one day the pro's will suddenly outweigh the cons and the "it's wrong" phase will become "ahh, there are worse things."
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Well, Omega, Rob sure doesn't think its the worst thing ever. You and he sure throw a fit about Bill Clinton lying about a blow job ... but George Bush considers something like this, and you're both not only rather silent, but Rob's very much an apologist. His posts have defended the concept (oh, they've got AC! So whatever we do is okay), and you've been rather silent on the whole thing except when you're trolling to draw attention from this plan instead of contributing to the arguement. So, you know, yeah, I think its a reasonable inference to draw.
[ April 24, 2002, 04:59: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Robs whole argument here is that they are just considering it. Well isn't the point where they are considering something like this the time that the people should come forward and say yes or no to a course of action. Are these means within the law? Do these means fall within our morally excepted norms of our society? Does it fall withinn the norms of your allies societies? This is the time to debate not argue about the wording of the article. Because once a government goes down to planning on the list it is a very short time before they execute the plan.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Considering the lack of a declaration of war, I assume the repeatedly-used term "POW" stands for "Prisoner Of Dubya"?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
lol
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So far I think Grokca has summed it up the best.
For all the smoke and mirrors, Rob hasn't even, as his chum Omega stated, said what he thinks trying people based on guilty-by-association evidence...
And for that matter, neither has Omega, who comes in to clarify Rob's rather muddy posisition...
All the while Snay appears, stick in hand, to wack the hornet's nest...
In other words, par for the course.
The question remains, is this something that the present administration should be planning?
[ April 24, 2002, 15:52: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No, it's, as Rob pointed out, whether this is something the administration should be CONSIDERING, which is a different concept entirely.
As for an answer, "yes". One should thoughtfully consider ALL one's options, regardless of what they may be. If you hear that they're SERIOUSLY considering it, get back to me.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Time to whack the hornet's next. Even those these particular hornets are mostly harmless.
Omega, the consideration of anything by the Administration is SERIOUS. I'm sorry you don't seem to grasp this. Hey, whatever.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Ok, let's plan poking them in the eye with a stick. That's AMONG the OPTIONS at this time.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
How about we throw them in a cell with Omega? I know that after about an hour, I'd be slamming my head into the wall in an effort to kill myself. Might work with them, too.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, and I would like to point out that the time to discuss such things is right now, not as the the present administration is standing these prisoners of war before a tribunal with no direct evidence.
[ April 24, 2002, 16:15: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: Rob apparently believes that if someone is gathering material to attack or kill someone, it isn't illegal because "it's just thought."
No, that's stage three, which I pretty much pointed out WOULD often be illegal (depending upon the act).
Given that you repeatedly miss this, one can only conclude that you:
a) Haven't been reading, b) Have read, but have poor comprehensive skills, or c) Have read and comprehended, but continue to blow shite for reasons of deception.
quote:I believe that if you're in the planning stage of something illegal (even if you're considering whether its possible to commit and/or get away with a crime), you're comitting an illegal act.
Well, fortunately you're not running the thought police, because by that criteria you would have to lock up EVERY HUMAN BEING. Especially everybody who'd ever played one of those novelty board games that ask ethical questions, or books like "The Book of Questions" which ASK you to actively consider such things as moral dilemmas.
Big Brother Lives, and he is thee.
[ April 24, 2002, 16:31: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Ah, but Rob, if you've got no intention to commit an illegal act (i.e., playing a morality game), then what are you doing illegal? Oh, nothing. Right.
On the other hand, if you're planning escape routes from a bank ... well, that's probably pretty illegal, wouldn't you agree? You're planning on the comission of a felony -- that IS illegal.
I'm sorry you don't see the difference. Then again, I don't know why I'm surprised. You're an apologist for the use of nukes in combat, and now for this. If the Bush Administration pushes for torture, I'm sure you'll apologize for that too.
Maybe we should throw Al-Queda in a cell with Rob AND Omega. I bet it'd be five minutes before they're cracking their heads into the brick wall to escape the stupidity.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Dang! Them thar Bensons and Farquars are a-feudin' again!
Meanwhile, the rest of us will just continue batting around the original argument, not the mutated strain you two are playing with.
I believe that there are some things that governments shouldn't be considering. Because one day they'll just decide "what the hell?"
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I see, the present administration discussing the denial of due process is like Snay playing a board game.
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
or masterbating with a cheese grater....
mildly amusing, but mostly painful....
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Ow.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:if you've got no intention to commit an illegal act (i.e., playing a morality game), then what are you doing illegal? Oh, nothing. Right.
quote:I believe that if you're in the planning stage of something illegal (even if you're considering whether its possible to commit and/or get away with a crime), you're comitting an illegal act.
These two statements are in conflict. Which are you going to choose to go with today?
Is is possible, in fact easy, to consider whether its possible to commit a crime without having any intention of committing it. It is also possible to have intent, but never get beyond the considering phase before changing one's mind, without committing a single illegal act.
Hm. Do the Snayvian Thought Police believe that you commit a crime if you consider committing a crime that is impossible? For instance, I believe that if the people who abused Julie (to use a personal example you're so fond of) were alive today, I would consider (and more) their deaths at my hand.
Or how about this: I once, in concert with others and in some detail, considered an assault on a person we knew to be abusing his girlfriend. Circumstances (his arrest, her departure) caused the abortion of the plan while it was still in the consideration stage. Are we criminals?
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
'justifiable homicide' has always been an interesting term, too me anyway.... Which is usually followed far too closely by, 'excessive force'.....
If you had been protecting her, and stabbed the guy, and he died, well, possible justifiable homicide.... stabbing him 19 times might me considered excessive force....
The jury would need the full circumstances and the right wind direction....
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Silly Robert.
Look, I'm sorry that you don't know the difference between an "off-hand" thought and a serious, "gee, I'm considering doing this illegal act" thought.
Yes, Robert, you're guilty of conspiracy to commit assault. I'm sure this is a surprise to you, but I don't see why it would be. You apparently were very serious in assaulting this person, which would be a crime, and I doubt you were waiting to go after him when he was in the middle of beating up his girl. Planning a crime is indeed a crime, but it's got one benefit: it's usually hard to tell you're thinking about it, so since you were lucky enough not to go through with it, you got off scott free. You can bet if the cops got wind of it and found you holding a baseball bat and lying in wait, you'd've spent a night in jail and gotten to ride in a police car with some metal bracelets.
As anyone with half an ounce of common sense is also aware (having a college degree does not equal having an ounce of common sense), killing a dead person is impossible. Feelings of rage aren't illegal, Rob, unless you act on them. Or start making plans to commit crimes based on them. If the cops break down your door and find you're building a pipe bomb, do you really think screaming "thought police!" will save you?
I'm sorry you can't see the difference. I'm sorry you can't see that for all account the Bush Administration is seriously considering this as a course of action. I know, if they do decide to do this, that Omega will ignore it and go ranting about Bill Clinton getting a blowjob. I'm sure you'll keep posting in the flameboard, and get bashed by Lee the next time you bring up your girlfriend. You're wrong, Rob. You're stretching with your examples. You're yelling "thought police" ... I wonder if that's what you'd say if the USSS busted a guy with a sniper-rifle waiting in ambush for President Bush. "The damn thought police!"
Get some common sense, Rob. Realize that you're lucky you're not a convicted criminal -- because if you'd attacked that guy, there's a good possibility you would be. One wonders why you didn't contact the police. One wonders why you're not aware that viligante justice is illegal.
More then anything else, stop posting these inane examples. Get back on topic, or keep your promise from the other thread and go away.
[ April 24, 2002, 19:22: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Man, I'm sick of reading this.
Here's an angle that might mean we don't have to trudge through any more demi-moral pissing contests where neither side has even the slightest chance of comprehending the other:
As previously established, the administration is considering this. That means that now is the time that we let the administration know how we feel about it. Therefore, we should let our representatives know how we feel about this, and our representatives will do whatever they damn well please because that's the way they've always done it, but at least they'll know how we feel about it.
I happen to think that most people would agree that prosecuting and punishing people without any evidence of their crimes is wrong and is therefore not something we should ever do, but hey what is that old axiom about everyone having opinions? I also happen think that most people would like to see those who have comitted crimes be punished for their foul deeds. That, at least, I think we could all agree on, eh?
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Amen, Balaam.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
This entire debate is based on a completely illogical comparison. When a person simply thinks about commiting a crime, you can't hold them accountable. It's just a thought. But, when a government officially considers something, it's a completely different matter. For you, as an individual, to think about a crime, the thought need merely cross your mind. But, for a government to consider a crime, not only must the idea cross someone's mind, but they have to decide it's a valid idea to consider; then they have to tell it to other people who also have to decide that it's a valid idea to consider. This is a much more serious "consideration" of the crime than my simply thinking "Y'know, I kinda think I'd like to punch these people in the face. But, nah...".
[ April 24, 2002, 21:04: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
THANK you, Timothy. 8)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Bye-bye tought police obfuscation...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
War Plan Red, War Plan Black, War Plan Orange.
These were three plans drawn up by the US between the late 1890's and the early 1930's.
They were strategic scenarios and options , plans for waging war, being 'considered' if the US had felt the need to defend its Pacific interests against The UK (Red), Germany (Black), and Japan (Orange).
Can you tell me when US forces last engaged the British fleet in the Pacific? Thought not.
Consideration and planning, even detailed strategic planning on the governmental level, does not necessarily equal intent to carry out.
quote:If the cops break down your door and find you're building a pipe bomb, do you really think screaming "thought police!" will save you?
No, screaming "no warrant" will, though. Evidence seized without a proper search warrant would be inadmissable.
Bad wannabe cop. No donut.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Sometimes. Sometimes.
Question: Should the government of the United States of America proceed with trials of the prisioners [of war] currently housed at Guantanamo based on evidence as layed out in the article?
I can't make it simpler. I'm sure the Smoke and Mirrors Brigade will try and make it more complicated than a yes or no answer...or try to bring in unrelated concepts. We'll see what we'll see.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Sorry I tried to get the discusssion moving in the intelligent direction but FOT seems to think you should not discuss something until 1: GWB actually has his hand in the cookie jar, not a mm from the edge but in. 2: the democrats did it. 3: the french did it
Back to topic. I don't think that these are good criteria for bringing people to trial. They are basically saying ah we'll think of something later as the trial progresses. Glad my country doesn't have courts like that. But saying that I think this admin. will do it because they have detained these people for so long, without reason, as they are not POW, and now they find they have nothing to charge them with. But if they let them go they will lose face with the rest of the world so they have to do this. These men were convicted the day they were brought there. They are just waiting for the "drumhead" (is that what Picard called it). As GWB pointed out these guys are all terrorist without evidence then, and they won't need it at the trials because they will be behind closed doors and military.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Clearly, the relationships between considering, planning, and intent to do are fuzzy. I now believe you are correct in believing that little progress can be made in this area.
Right now, I'm looking for parallells between these trials and the trials of Nazi officers at Nuremburg and other places. My hypothesis is that there were at least some incidents where Nazis were, essentially, tried for being Nazis. If this is so, then the same logic may apply here, and would make these actions appropriate. If not... back to the drawing board.
However, I'm no expert on WWII judicial history, so I've asked a few folks who should be able to provide data. More on that later.
From the article:
quote:The new approach would make it an offense to have been a senior member or officer of a Qaeda unit that was involved in any of the regular crimes of war
Of course, it will still be necessary to demonstrate that the accused was a senior member or officer, and that their unit was involved in any of the regular crimes of war (Thus the charge of 'no evidence necessary' seems specious)
Additionally, the 'new approach' above seems to me to be very much the same rationale behind trying Nazi officers who were "only following orders" in ordering their troops/guards/etc. to committ war crimes.
If there's a difference, I'm interested in hearing it.
[ April 25, 2002, 14:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
No, its a bad thing to do. Yes, it is something that I support.
Hard. No.
Instead, we've taken another interesting logical turn.
Rightness or wrongness of an act can not be taken into account on its own merrit, it is now dependent on previous events of dubious analogy.
So much for moral clarity.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Rightness or wrongness of an act can not be taken into account on its own merrit, it is now dependent on previous events of dubious analogy.
Yep, we call that "legal precedent."
Who ever said the law had anything to do with morality?
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
quote:No, screaming "no warrant" will, though. Evidence seized without a proper search warrant would be inadmissable.
Bad wannabe cop. No donut.
There are a lot of things I love. Especially when Rob puts his foot in his ass so deep it'll be permenently stained brown. I guess the saying is actually "mouth" (not ass), but, oh well.
Now, see, Rob is a librarian. And as he's so fond of pointing out, he majored in English. And yet he doesn't seem to have the whole comprehension thing figured out.
Obviously, if the police are kicking down his door, they HAVE a warrant. Why do they have such a warrant? I dunno. Maybe a neighbor saw Rob building his bomb. Maybe someone over heard him bragging about it. Maybe Julie decided she didn't want to get married to the next Unabomber. Maybe he's in his parents' basement and they don't like him building bombs in their house, so they gave the police permission to enter and search after informing them of what was going on (and since it's Rob's parents' house, if they give consent, the cops don't need a warrant). Anyways, that's for another scenario for the First of Two.
Yet Rob would like to pretend they don't have a warrant. Well, that's all good and well, I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that he made a rather bold assumption about a scenario which, since it didn't say otherwise, should have (all together now) common sense applied to it.
Then again, Robert has never shown himself to have common sense, so why be surprised?
Bad wannabe librarian. No book for you.
quote:War Plan Red, War Plan Black, War Plan Orange.
These were three plans drawn up by the US between the late 1890's and the early 1930's.
They were strategic scenarios and options , plans for waging war, being 'considered' if the US had felt the need to defend its Pacific interests against The UK (Red), Germany (Black), and Japan (Orange).
Now, here we see classic Robert slight of hand at work. The military obviously functions a bit different from the civilian government. This is what we like to call "D'uh."
To be the best, the military has to prepare for every option, no matter how silly we might think it is. They can run drills and exercises to ready for an attack by Martians, if they'd like. And it always pays to prepare for the worst fight you can imagine -- and pre-World War II, Great Britain ruled the seas. Any military force in the world should always judge themselves by how well they stack up to the best, not to the weak nation with a seventy-year old warship.
This, as anyone with (here's that magical word again!) common sense can tell you, is much different from the civilian government considering a process that is highly illegal. Big difference, Robby muh boy! Still can't see it, huh?
[ April 25, 2002, 20:00: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Erm... Who cares what was done at the war crimes trials at Nürnberg? Just because something's been done before, that doesn't make it a good thing. After all, I'm sure there was plenty of anti-Semitism carried out in Nürnberg shortly prior to those trials, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the government to consider persecution of Jews and their relatives.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, chill with the name calling!
Maybe this is just me, but the last time I check, a debate is won by solid and sound arguments, not two person going at each other to see who can come up with the best profanity to piss other people off.
When something like "your foot is stuck in your ass" type of comments come up, it's offensive no matter what the original intention might be.
The way I see it, comments like this have no place in a civilize debate; take it to the ghetto where only low life bottom feeders or lousy bums can appreciate the twisted humor behind it.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
But Bluey, this is where the fun comes from! Neither of these two will ever, ever, be able to put forth an argument which changes the other's view on anything. It's how they go about trying that provides the entertainment.
Now, regarding military contingency plans; I wonder, would Rob be concerned if the US military started assembling plans designed to implement a state of martial law? No, and neither would I, because there are many good reasons why martial law might need to be declared at one time or another. And given what assholes soldier types can be, I'd sooner they know what they're doing before they start shooting people for driving too fast in the car park at Walmart.
But what if they started, whether at the elected government's direction or not, forming plans to implement martial law prior to (and in replacement for) the next set of major elections, say the congressional mid-terms or even the next Presidential race? Said plans including the rounding-up of major opposition party leaders? How does that sit with your "it's OK for the goverment to consider anything, it's just like the military making contingency plans" stance?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, I understand "legal precedent" there Rob and I half expected you to run there.
However, since conservatives reject international action now, i.e. opposition to the war crimes court, how can you now lay claim to past international adjudication to support present potential American military tribunals?
And...
If in past tribunals, and I'm not saying it happened at Nuremburg, there were due process problems, how does that make it ok now?
[ April 26, 2002, 09:45: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Pretty damn poor, if you ask me, Lee. It's one thing for soldiers to know crowd control -- and in fact, I think the Military Police and National Guard are pretty well instructed in what to expect if they're needed in a riot ...
... but, yeah, the situation you describe would bother me very much. And I'm sure, if it was a Democratic politician in office when it happened, that Rob & Omega would be quick to scream about treason, or big government, or whatever (of course, if it was a Republican in office, it would be 'just planning').
Blue -- no one forces you to read the Flameboard. And if you think THIS is name-calling, surf over to the TrekBBS's The Neutral Zone.
[ April 26, 2002, 08:35: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Oh, I understand "legal precedent" there Rob and I half expected you to run there.
However, since conservatives reject international action now, i.e. opposition to the war crimes court, how can you now lay claim to past international adjudication to support present potential American military tribunals?
And...
If in past tribunals, and I'm not saying it happened at Nuremburg, there were due process problems, how does that make it ok now?
Damn it Jay I was going to make that point.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hey, aren't y'all the ones always yelling about how court rulings ARE law, regardless of any superceeding law?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
If that was supposed to mean something, let me assure you it didn't.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
It's quite simple really. If Omeychops can show that even one of those people, who has an opposing viewpoint to his, has ever expressed such an opinion regarding court rulings, then that means that every single one of these people who don't agree with him are wrong about everything, ever. Because he's never contradicted himself, and he's always right. Bit like his views on the Bible, really - 100% correct and non-contradictory.
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
politics/politicians suck, where as a vacuum is supposed to.....
Has the UN really made plans to invade the US??? If so, is it a bad thing???
The original state of consideration was probably made to gauge public opinion on if such a stupid thing would be acceptable... Which, on the surface, people would think, 'Yes, get them fucks!', then, if they actually think about it (which doesn't seem to be a great human passtime) they would think, 'Fuck no, then we are opening ourselves up for the same treatment, by letting them set such a precedent!'.....
The Nazis line of defense.... "I was just following orders."
The terrorists line of defense.... "Die you western devil."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Hey, aren't y'all the ones always yelling about how court rulings ARE law, regardless of any superceeding law?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't say any such thing. (Incidentally, I also wouldn't misspell "superseding" in the process.)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Or superceding, to the rest of us.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There is a difference between being opposed to something in general, and being opposed to something in its current form.
For instance: One need not be eternally opposed to a Court of International Law to be opposed to the current form it seems to be taking.
Or, one need not be opposed to the death penalty in general to be opposed to the way in which it is currently being administered.
OR, one need not be an atheist to disbelieve in the JudeoChristian version of "God."
These black and white either-or fallacies become very tiresome after a while. a Bad Idea may still contain elements which are Good Ideas.
In other words, despite the smokescreen, just because I don't like the current direction the World Court idea seems to be going in does NOT mean I reject all International tribunal decisions and activities.
I even support the concept of a world government... so long as it's more libertarian than authoritarian, and toward the center economically.
Back to topic: One of my sources seems to assert that the entire SS, including the Waffen SS, was tried and convicted in absentia. This would seem to support the precedent. Still waiting for more data.
quote:If in past tribunals, and I'm not saying it happened at Nuremburg, there were due process problems, how does that make it ok now?
Because people have been silent on the subject for 50 years. It's one of those 'you're protesting this, why aren't you protesting that? It's the same thing' things. Plus its amusing to imagine the looks on their faces when they realize that their position supports pardoning Nazis.
quote:If Omeychops can show that even one of those people, who has an opposing viewpoint to his, has ever expressed such an opinion regarding court rulings, then that means that every single one of these people who don't agree with him are wrong about everything, ever. Because he's never contradicted himself, and he's always right.
Funny, that's the same thing Jay is doing when he made his "since conservatives reject international action now, how can you now lay claim to past international adjudication?" speech.
Funny, that.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Rob,
Well, you at least left the part alone about the police warrant and being a "wannabe librarian" ... good for you.
One big difference is this, however. The Nazi officers tried were known to be members of the Nazi party. There was signifigant evidence of their crimes (like all those dead Jews), and that they were in charge. The Nuremberg Trials were more about how far one could be defended under "I was only obeying orders."
What we discuss here is completely different. How do we know that the men and women our government will haul before its tribunals are members of terrorist organizations WITHOUT evidence that they are?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
How do we know we're going to be hauling them without evidence?
I see a lot of assertions here of 'these people are going to be tried on no evidence,' but not even the original article seems to back that up.
It says they're having trouble gathering enough evidence to charge them with 'traditional' war crimes, but that's not the same as not having enough evidence to charge them with ANY crime.
If we DO consider "to have been a senior member or officer of a Qaeda unit that was involved in any of the regular crimes of war" as a crime (and given the precedent I discussed before, there's no reason we shouldn't), that's a different story. I don't think that there's any doubt that the folks being held at Guantanamo ARE officers (not necessarily high-ranking Osama confidantes, but officers nonetheless in the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda). IIRC, that was one of the qualifications to be shipped there rather than held in Afghanistan.
I'm assuming that there's evidence enough to support that particular charge, which is why the government is going with that. Actually, I suspect that particular evidence wouldn't be all that hard to come by. You could glean some every time one guy referred to another by rank, or took orders from him.
[ April 27, 2002, 08:56: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:I don't think that there's any doubt that the folks being held at Guantanamo ARE officers (not necessarily high-ranking Osama confidantes, but officers nonetheless in the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda). IIRC, that was one of the qualifications to be shipped there rather than held in Afghanistan.
What do you base this on?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. officials say privately that they expect only a small number of them will face charges before the tribunals; a larger number, they say, are likely to be detained indefinitely without being charged. That is because U.S. officials are having trouble obtaining information about the detainees, and most are turning out to be low-ranking fighters.
This is from a Washington post article that I posted on April 2 in the Topic: A shocking view of Military Tribunals from a Liberal Thread. The url to the article is there.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:What do you base this on?
I heard it on some news report, that the people being held at Guantanamo were primarily officers, or what passes for officers among the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. I forget exactly where. Perhaps I misheard, or perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps it's newer data.
Still, A lieutenant is an officer, but he isn't of high rank. (Or by Trek, an ensign is an officer, but he's hardly of high rank.)
[ April 27, 2002, 14:15: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Wait -- I thought the Taliban didn't HAVE officers or a chain of command! At least, isn't that what people were saying when some were wondering about the Geneva Convention?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Uh, English major god-like being? If you'll excuse me for a second. "We've captured bin Laden's lieutenants" doesn't mean "We've captured bin Laden's low-ranking military officers."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Or superceding, to the rest of us."
I've checked, and you seem to have a variant that's considered incorrect. Another relic of the French, apparently.
As for the continued use of the Nürnberg trials as "precedent", what's next? The Star Chamber? The Spanish Inquisition?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I stand corrected. Looks like it squirmed into my MS Word dictionary.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's not in mine either. We'll have to give this round to the Yank, Tom.
But never fear. We shall ultimately triumph!
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
The stiff upper lip and all....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Surely that gets in the way when kissing?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I wouldn't know, I've only shaken hands with Liam. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Hands"?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
You mean that wasn't. . ? *screams*
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
"We are merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, I'd like to hear it."
-Lee
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Back to the point at hand.
The present administration is not laying claim to international law in this case as far as I can see. In fact, they want nothing to do with international law or international opinion regarding the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay.
The present administration has maneuvered the prisioners to such a place where neither international law nor American standards of justice have anything to do with their fates which are apparently to be adjudicated by military tribunal. The oposition has danced around the subject, but denying due process to the prisioners will be wholly on the heads of the present administration and not on some ghost of past international proceedings.
It is intellectually dishonest for the oposition to lay claim to the Nuremburg trials or on international law in general as some sort of binding precedent in defense of present administration policy regading the potential trails for the above reasons. Further, it is hypocritical make the claim due to the fact that the present administration has seen fit not to call the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay "prisioners of war" and have maneuvered them as far away from international scrutiny as they can.
Moreover,
quote:Because people have been silent on the subject for 50 years.
is dishonest in light of the fact that there has been no evidence of due process violations presented. Not one scintilla.
Nor are Nuremburg trials wholly analogous in the first place. The fact of the matter is that the present administration has placed the prisioners in a legal limbo where they can get the resuts they want more easily. All doen regardless of the fact that that places the proceedings outside the bounds of accepted legal standards.
Regarding Omega's silly post:
quote:Hey, aren't y'all the ones always yelling about how court rulings ARE law, regardless of any superceeding law?
Apparently, like Mr. Bush, you not here to nuance. Or to actually think for that matter.
All previous discussion regarding the primacy of court rulings that I've been involved in have revolved around the Supreme Court of the United States which the Constitution set as the controling court in decisions regarding the scope and limitations United States law.
We've never talked about international law to my memory.
Moreover, the rulings of any lower court are subject to review by higher courts and can not therefore be seen as wholly controling or the final word in any given matter.
I don't know the standing of precedent in international law, but I should think that the Nuremburg trial court was not a controling court on scope or limitation of international law. Rather it was criminal courts impowered to decide the guilt or innocence of prisoners of war under guidelines previoulsly set and by its charter.
And, as pointed out above, the present administration has move the proceedings out of the bounds of the international arena, therefore, there is no "superceeding" international law in this case.
[ April 29, 2002, 15:49: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Them there's some good points, actually.
The problem here I think is that there's no real consensus as to the status of the prisoners, what they should be defined as ("rabid dogs" works for me, but others no doubt disagree).
That's mostly because there's no real precedent for prisoner-taking of this kind... they don't meet the standards of Prisoners of War, they're not common street thugs, perhaps the best analogy would be members of some international criminal organization, and their agents in one particular country.
It's like a comic book, and they're Cobra (or Hydra, for those of you who like "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.")
I wonder if there is a procedure anywhere for dealing with that type of organization. If not, we need one.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Of interest:
quote:Conspiracy, "Mere Membership," and Freedom of Association
The danger of criminalizing "mere membership" in a disfavored group is that it is essentially allows guilt by association, a concept anathema to American principles of justice. Not only does this approach offend due process, which requires individual guilt, it infringes upon freedom of association, a constitutionally-protected right.
But past experience demonstrates that the more threatening the group, the more likely it is that the line between mere membership and participation in an illegal conspiracy will be blurred.
The Nuremberg Precedent
The Nuremberg Charter specifically criminalized six organizations, including the SS, the SA, and the Gestapo. The underlying idea was that membership alone would make a defendant vulnerable to punishment. Indeed, allied planners intended to rely on organizational charges to prosecute large numbers of people in the trials subsequent to the main Nuremberg prosecutions, people against whom there was no individualized evidence but plenty of documentary evidence showing membership. (For various reasons, including developments in the political context, this did not happen.)
The Nuremberg judges, and even its prosecutors, were aware of the due process concerns implicated in criminalizing membership. In the end, the tribunal's actual practice was much more conservative than the Charter would suggest, including a narrower interpretation of organizational liability. (Some later courts read the Nuremberg precedent as requiring personal knowledge and active participation as predicates for organizational guilt.) No Nuremberg defendant was convicted simply on the basis of organizational membership.
Justice Robert H. Jackson, the tribunal's chief prosecutor, acknowledged that the Charter's rules on organizational liability "would be easy to abuse," although on his return to the U.S. he supported the punishment of alleged communists on the basis of organizational liability. Telford Taylor, one of Jackson's deputy prosecutors, learned a clearer lesson. On his return home, he developed a specialty of defending individuals accused of Communist Party membership.
quote:He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine
[ April 29, 2002, 16:27: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Interesting.
Reassessment in progress. *whirr clank*
This part is interesting:
quote:(Some later courts read the Nuremberg precedent as requiring personal knowledge and active participation as predicates for organizational guilt.)
Suspect that personal knowledge wouldn't be hard to get in a group as close-knit as the Taliban/AlQuaeda group seems to be. If you believe that they huddled around radios and such waiting to hear the news, then that's PK. If you believe that the plan was kept secret from the other members, maybe not. If they knew 'something' was going to happen, that's a grey area.
Active participation... well, these guys were mostly captured in combat, weren't they? That's quite a bit more than just having a Communist Party registration card in your wallet and going to meetings at somebody's house.
But I'll agree that JUST charging them with being a member would be wrong (assuming that's what will be done.)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)