Okay, this is awful and all, but there seems to be something here that needs consideration.

If these people, including those who are innocent, were not terrorists before years of incarceration in a foreign Gulag will certainly have turned them into terrorists.

If you send them home with a letter that says "You were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We are sorry about the waterboarding and stuff" their hatred of the US will make Bin Laden seem like a moderate.

Obviously it is illegal to lock them up for the rest of their lives because you don't have evidence to try them, but to not see this coming must be the pinnacle of short-sighted thinking.

DasWiggy

The Constitutionand founding principles have never been a suicide pact.

It's suicide to give these people trials?

Anything besides holding them indefinitely without trial, charges, or access to lawyers is suicide?

That's a practical impossibility when dealing with people who are captured in a military operation in hostile terrain.

Except that some of the Gitmo detainees were detained under the notion of "capture first, ask questions later."

Some have been let go, and a waiver of a right to sue for damages was included in their release. So we acknowledge that we held them for two or three years without reason, but to let them go we require them to enter into a contract not to sue?

The point is that if you don't have evidence against a person--any person, no matter where detained, then you should let them go. If you have evidence that they were legal combatants, give them certain rights. If you have evidence that they were illegal combatants, then deny them those rights. But you cannot simply hold a person regardless of the lack of evidence. It is not what a civilized government does.

If China detained some Americans who were preaching the Bible, against the will of the Chinese government, and called them subversives trying to undermine the government, and then held them indefinitely without trial, would you people have the same attitude?

Someone who supports indefinite detentions please anwer that question, and give your reasons. Seriously, I want to see the extent to which you have either thought this through, or ignore the principles that make America what it is.

This is totally messed up.

If they weren't terrorists before, they are now.
I know I'd be. Keep me locked up for no reason, you better believe I'd hate America after that.

"Because otherwise what you're supporting is the ability to just round up every brown person and lock them up forever. Hyperbole? Maybe. But that's the precedent you want to set."

Heh. They're talking about a prison for 200 people, and suddenly you're saying they're going to lock up all brown people. Hyperbole? From you???? Nahhhhhh.....

NiceBeaver

It's true. Unfortunately. As long as feelings get in the way, and we all worry about "innocent" lives lost, this will never end. Why you ask? Because there is no way the troops will be able to get rid of all the terrorists and their supporters. As long as the primary means of confrontation is ground-warfare, it will never end.

That's a nice little dictatorship you've got in your mind there.

"Except that some of the Gitmo detainees were detained under the notion of "capture first, ask questions later.""

Imagine that!!! People shooting at you with machineguns, and you don't stop to Mirandize them before you capture them!!!

You seem to be saying that the people held at Gitmo were arrested for no reason. That's not the case. They were arrested under arms. The problem is trying to conduct a criminal hearing half-way around the world, when witnesses are not readily available, for crimes that took place in a combat zone.

"It's suicide to give these people trials?"

Nah, it's potential suicide to let them go free.

lovehate:

2005-01-02 12:31:51 PM lovehate

Thank god we got those bastards.





Masaud Ahmed Khan, Hammad Abdur-Raheem, and Seifullah Chapman, all native-born citizens of the United States, convicted in a federal court in Virginia under the more extreme provisions of the PATRIOT Act for playing paintball, practicing Islam, and speaking freely about the folly of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The Constitutionand founding principles have never been a suicide pact.


I hate the implication that goes with that phrase, which is that due process has no chance and is weaker than terrorism.

It's real easy to stand by your principles in the good times. But now, we get to see just how strong each person's beliefs in liberty really are.

2005-01-02 12:36:55 PM DasWiggy

Heh. They're talking about a prison for 200 people, and suddenly you're saying they're going to lock up all brown people. Hyperbole? From you???? Nahhhhhh.....

Yeah, and the war in Iraq was a war for WMD. Then it changed to--could have had them. To had the capability. To had the desire... Then to bring freedom to Iraqis. ANd any number of other reasons that I missed, they changed so fast.

Government and politics are not static. Today it's 200, tomorrow, 2000. Then later, maybe an American or two is thrown in, because terrorism is not limited to foreigners (OKC, anthrax...).

When the constitution is involved (or in this case inalienable rights of any man, where there is no evidence against them), you nip things in the bud. You don't let the abuses go for a while, and say "That's OK, it's only 200 Arabs."

Jesus 2.0

What do my statements have to do with a dictatorship? Once again, someone pulls an ad hominem/non sequitur combo.

I never mentioned anything about a specific type of government in the post. However, I did make a connection between the primary means of confrontation - ground warfare - and the inability to end the war by that means - "it will never end".

Nice try though. Thanks for playing.

Imagine that!!! People shooting at you with machineguns, and you don't stop to Mirandize them before you capture them!!!



What about the ones detained just on the word on the Northern Alliance?

For all you Bush defenders that claim this article is bullshiat, where have you been? The adminstration has fought tooth and nail against any sort of trial for the prisoners in quantanamo all along. Get your head out of your ass and quit pretending like they haven't.

You would get more power by attaching a generator to Thomas Jefferson's corpse whenever Bush mentions his name in a speech.

"What about the ones detained just on the word on the Northern Alliance?"

OK, if you don't want the US to hold them, I'm all for turning them back over to the Northern Alliance, and let them have Northern Alliance justice. I'd imagine that they'd all fit in just one Conex.... ;)

When the constitution is involved (or in this case inalienable rights of any man, where there is no evidence against them), you nip things in the bud. You don't let the abuses go for a while, and say "That's OK, it's only 200 Arabs."


....and they came for the Arabs, and I said nothing, because I wasn't an Arab......

Santayana was soooooooo right.

OralB

I am one Republican that won't deny that the Bush administration has been fighting against trials for these prisoners. However, I'm also a common citizen, who doesn't know what type of TOP SECRET evidence the prisoners may have against them.

Hopfully, the government is applying the law correctly. I trust they are. And once again, better safe than sorry. Seriously, I know it is a $#itty way to say it and think about it, but it's the truth. Better safe than sorry.

BillCosby

It's best to include links and quotes.

Is Playing Paintball and Firing Legal Guns Terrorism?

You need not take my word for the fact that these men weren't terrorists. Take the government's word, instead. According to a report in a June 28, 2003 Washington Post article, Michael E. Rolince, in charge of the Washington FBI field office, conceded that the government had no evidence of specific plots against U.S. targets at home or abroad. "A lot of this is about preemption," he said. A lot? How about the entire case? And since when is "preemptive" prosecution constitutional? Apparently, when you are a Muslim in post-September 11-America.

DasWiggy

You seem to be saying that the people held at Gitmo were arrested for no reason. That's not the case. They were arrested under arms.

You don't know that. Nobody does. That's the farking problem.

God bless the 18 year olds fighting in the wars but would you want them to be the sole judge and jury over your lifetime imprisonment?

"When the constitution is involved (or in this case inalienable rights of any man, where there is no evidence against them), you nip things in the bud."

They have no Constitutional rights. In case you missed it, the US Constitution is NOT extended to the entire world.

DasWiggy

"It's suicide to give these people trials?"

Nah, it's potential suicide to let them go free.

Okay. So, let me see if I've got this straight:

(1) We've got these people who have never been charged with any crime. We're holding them indefinitely.

(2) There may be a theoretical chance - unknown how much of one - that if we just blindly release them all right now, one or some or all of them will destroy the United States of America.

(3) Therefore, let's not give them trials.

I give up. You win. Congratulations. Glad you're not in power.

"What about the ones detained just on the word on the Northern Alliance?"

OK, if you don't want the US to hold them, I'm all for turning them back over to the Northern Alliance, and let them have Northern Alliance justice. I'd imagine that they'd all fit in just one Conex.... ;)


Already convicted them, have you?

"God bless the 18 year olds fighting in the wars but would you want them to be the sole judge and jury over your lifetime imprisonment?"

Which would you prefer? lifetime imprisonment, or trial by Rule 556, an offshoot of the old British Rule 303?

Almost time for football...I'm done with the mini-flamewar.

It's pointless anyway. Lefties will almost always yell for what seemingly makes Bush look bad. Righties will almost always yell for what supports Bush.

/Hopes everything works out
//Knows it won't

NiceBeaver

Hopfully, the government is applying the law correctly. I trust they are. And once again, better safe than sorry. Seriously, I know it is a $#itty way to say it and think about it, but it's the truth. Better safe than sorry.

We've seen repeatedly through this "war on terror" that secrecy has been an excuse for lack of evidence.

"Already convicted them, have you?"

Nah, I'm just realistic as to the outcome of a trial in Afghanistan by the NA...

Jesus 2.0: I give up. You win. Congratulations. Glad you're not in power.

If this rather sketchy article does turn out to be true, then the three statements you made DO reflect the beliefs of those in power.

I didn't read all of the discussion but this rotating corpse idea isn't new. Someone photoshopped the idea in a photoshop contest not too long ago.

"I give up. You win. Congratulations. Glad you're not in power."

I'm not???

DasWiggy: Nah, I'm just realistic as to the outcome of a trial in Afghanistan by the NA...

That can't be. The Northern Alliance are our allies, and Afghanistan has been transformed into a land of milk and honey with democracy and freedom for all!

Or did we screw up there too?

2005-01-02 12:39:32 PM DasWiggy

Imagine that!!! People shooting at you with machineguns, and you don't stop to Mirandize them before you capture them!!!

Except that some were captured that may not have fired a weapon. Did you miss the part about not having evidence? Don't you think that an eyewitness account of them shooting a gun at us would suffice as evidence?

No evidence = let them go.

You seem to be saying that the people held at Gitmo were arrested for no reason. That's not the case. They were arrested under arms. The problem is trying to conduct a criminal hearing half-way around the world, when witnesses are not readily available, for crimes that took place in a combat zone.

In fact, some may have been. In the ONLY case to go very far up the pipe in the judicial system, the Supreme Court ruled that the person was entitled to counsel and a tribunal. So you know what the US gov't did? They let him go. They acknowledged that there was no evidence against him and let him go in exchange for a promise not to sue the US.

If evidence is not readily available, then you let people go. That's just how it works. You don't hold people forever when you don't have evidence that they ever fired a gun.

Why is it that the people who support Bush are for some of the most radical policies? How can those who call themselves conservative, patriotic Americans be for holding people without evidence and without trial?

Look up habeas corpus, and the effect it had on the American Revolution. We revolted from this very same type of treatment. It is one of the underlying principles behind our Constitution, and makes us who we are. Now we treat others the same way Britain treated us. If you don't understand this, then you simply do not know what it is to be an American.

underdog:
2005-01-02 12:46:53 PM underdog
BillCosby
It's best to include links and quotes.

I've found the most effective Fark post means

(1) one picture (to grab some attention)
(2) no links (other wise people attack the website not the info)
(3) 30 words (other wise people nitpick)

could be wrong.

BillCosby
Prosecutors said the three were part of a "Virginia jihad network" that used paintball games in 2000 and 2001 to train for holy war around the globe. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the group turned its intentions toward America, and several members, including Khan, traveled to Pakistan in the days after the attacks to train with Lashkar in the hopes of joining the Taliban and fighting against the United States.

Two defendants -- Chapman and Abdur-Raheem -- testified in their own defense and said the paintball games were innocent fun and fellowship among a group of Muslim friends. Chapman admitted attending the Lashkar camp in August 2001, but said he did so not to train for holy war but for a grueling physical challenge in the rugged Pakistani mountains.

You believe that, you've got to be shi**ng me.

OK, if you don't want the US to hold them, I'm all for turning them back over to the Northern Alliance, and let them have Northern Alliance justice. I'd imagine that they'd all fit in just one Conex.... ;)

But... but... the Northen Alliance were the good guys. The Taliban were the bad guys. How could the NA do something like that? Oh, I'm so confused! Bill O'Reilly, please tell me who the enemy are, I just don't know anymore!

flypusher713:

....and they came for the Arabs, and I said nothing, because I wasn't an Arab......

And then the came for me, and I said, "Hey, wait a minute! I know where the gays are!"

NiceBeaver

What do my statements have to do with a dictatorship? Once again, someone pulls an ad hominem/non sequitur combo.

You advocate the government having the power to arrest people and hold them indefinitely without charges, without trial, and without concern over whether they are innocent or not.

That's a dictatorship.

DasWiggy

"God bless the 18 year olds fighting in the wars but would you want them to be the sole judge and jury over your lifetime imprisonment?"

Which would you prefer? lifetime imprisonment, or trial by Rule 556, an offshoot of the old British Rule 303?

Which would you prefer? Ru Ru or death?

NiceBeaver said "Hopfully, the government is applying the law correctly. I trust they are."

You haven't read much history have you? Your whole system of government, including but not limited to the Constitution is intended to maintain checks and balances against the abuse of power. When the government starts dismantling those checks and balances is when you know that they are a domestic enemy.

All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

Therefore, I stand today opposed to my President, and the anti-American, un-Constitutional, unpatriotic Administration for which he serves as figurehead. I will do my part to voice my opposition, educate the populace, diligently support my political causes, and work with others to restore American freedoms to their former glory.

"Already convicted them, have you?"

Nah, I'm just realistic as to the outcome of a trial in Afghanistan by the NA...

The point is that the NA was PAID for each prisoner they turned over. See the potential for abuse? What better way to settle a grudge? "That guy looked at my sister in an improper way! I'll fix him! That guy overcharged my cousin for a goat. I'll get back at him!"

Originally from the Economist - lifted from James Wolcott blog


"Kind of a Shame"
Posted by James Wolcott
From The Economist, January 1st-7th 2005 (registration required; oh just go out and buy the damn thing):

"There is only one traffic law in Ramadi these days: when Americans approach, Iraqis scatter. Horns blaring, brakes screaming, the midday traffic skids to the side of the road as a line of Humvee jeeps ferrying American marines rolls the wrong way up the main street. Every vehicle, that is, except one beat-up old taxi. Its elderly driver, flapping his outstretched hands, seems, amazingly, to be trying to turn the convoy back. Gun turrets swivel and lock on to him, as a hefty marine sargeant leaps into the road, levels an assault rifle at his turbanned head, and screams: 'Back this biatch up, motherfarker!'

"The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: 'Keep 50m or deadly force will be applied.' In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching with 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: 'If anyone gets too close to us we farking waste them,' says a bullish lieutenant. 'It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.'"

Kind of a shame, killing the people you're trying to democratize, but after awhile, says the same lieutenant, "It gets to the point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody..."

With characteristic dry English understatement, The Economist's embedded reporter (Economist pieces are unbylined) notes, "[W]hen America's well-drilled and well-fed fighters attempt subtler tasks than killing people, problems arise." Their contempt for Iraqis is undisguised and dramatically expressed: a soldier, confronted by "jeering schoolchildren," fires canisters of buckshot from his grenade-launcher at them, and marines busting down doors in Ramadi scream at trembling middle-aged women: "biatch, where's the guns?" Small wonder, ventures the correspondent, that "many Iraqis are probably more scared of American troops than of insurgents."

The last grafs of the report recount a big whoopy-do operation in the smugglers' haven of Baij involving a convoy of 1000 troops supported by Apache attack helicopters targeting three houses that had been linked to Zarquawi's terrorist band, according to a local informant.

There was no one in the houses except women and children. Rather than return to base empty, they pay homage to the last reel of Casablanca and round up the usual suspects.

"...they detained 70 men from districts indentified by their informant as 'bad.' In near-freezing conditions, they sat hooded and bound in their pyjamas. They shivered uncontrollably. One wetted himself in fear. Most had been detained at random; several had been held because they had a Kalashnikov rifle, which is legal. The evidence against one man was some anti-American literature, a meat cleaver, and a tin whistle. American intelligence officers moved through the ranks of detainees, raising their hoods to take mugshots: 'One, two, three, jihaaad!' A middle-tier officer commented on the mission: 'When we do this,' he said. 'We lose.'"

There's a Peter Cook-Dudley Moore routine, one of their woolgathering dialogues, where Dud asks Pete, "So would you say you've learned from your mistakes?" and Pete replies: "Oh yes, I'm certain I could repeat them exactly."

That seems to have been the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. Take the mistakes of Vietnam and repeat them exactly.

And at that you can't say they haven't succeeded.

To all, don't believe everything you read, especially anything by the anti-conservative republican pro-liberal media. For example, during the presidential campaign, they kept saying that Bush was gonna reinstate the draft, knowing full well that it was the democrats who put the draft
bill into the Senate? (please note date)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

You realize it is the Democrats who are limiting our
freedom to worship?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat4.htm

You realize it is the Democrats who have been dividing
our country since Jim Jeffords switched parties in
early 2001?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/politics_main.html

Sloth_DC


Good one! Thanks for the laugh!

Cloudchaser_the_red_wolf_furry

You realize it is the Democrats who are limiting our
freedom to worship?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat4.htm

You realize it is the Democrats who have been dividing
our country since Jim Jeffords switched parties in
early 2001?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june01/politics_main.html

Wow, the Democrats are doing pretty well at taking America's freedoms considering THEY'RE NOT IN POWER.

Has anyone seen The Power of Nightmares By Adam Curtis yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

If anyone has a high quality torrent link, please post it.

INDEFINITE DETAINMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR CHARGES = HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT

Period. Thought we learned a thing or two about that 140 years ago.

trance, I guess those POWs during WWII must have raised a hue and cry about their enslavement in 1943, eh?

[M]arines busting down doors in Ramadi scream at trembling middle-aged women: "biatch, where's the guns?"

Classic.