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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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 ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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 ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
