President Obama calls for a 120-day freeze on Guantanamo Bay prosecutions

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whatwhat**

It's worse, Fox news is the most laughable news source known to western man.

**Hordini**

dogma wrote:But when the battlefield is the globe, and the war is against an emotion, when does this battle end?

The war is not against an emotion, that's ridiculous. Labels and catchphrases don't always tell the whole story. Just because it's called "The War on Terror" doesn't mean we're fighting against an emotion. We're fighting against terrorists. The war, just like all other wars since the invention of gunpowder and the firearm, is against the people who are shooting at us and bombing us. It ends when they stop shooting and bombing. Some wars last longer than others.

It's also interesting that of the Guantanamo inmates that could be released, many of the countries who want us to close the place down also don't want to take any of the inmates off our hands if we release them. That says a lot, right there, I think.

**Hordini**

Fox isn't any more (or less) biased than any of the rest of the mainstream media sources. Fox is just an easy scapegoat.

**whatwhat**

Hordini wrote:Fox isn't any more (or less) biased than any of the rest of the mainstream media sources. Fox is just an easy scapegoat.

Honestly? Try retuning your television.

**dogma**

Hordini wrote:
The war is not against an emotion, that's ridiculous. Labels and catchphrases don't always tell the whole story. Just because it's called "The War on Terror" doesn't mean we're fighting against an emotion. We're fighting against terrorists.

Admittedly that was a polemical statement, but I think it somewhat encompasses the issue. Terrorism is a tactic, it cannot be fought against. Least of all when we utilize terrorism in the course of combating it. Indeed, all organized violence is in some sense terroistic in that it leans on affecting the will of a given group to resist control. No, we are not fighting against terrorism, we are not fighting against terrorists, we are fighting against destabilizing militant action. And we cannot make the world less-stable in the course of that conflict if we are to be successful.

Hordini wrote:
The war, just like all other wars since the invention of gunpowder and the firearm, is against the people who are shooting at us and bombing us. It ends when they stop shooting and bombing. Some wars last longer than others.

It ends when we can incorporate those people into the system such that they do not feel the need to shoot us, and bomb us. That means governing them by the rule of law, which means global governance. You can't use old rules to apply to a new world.

Hordini wrote:
It's also interesting that of the Guantanamo inmates that could be released, many of the countries who want us to close the place down also don't want to take any of the inmates off our hands if we release them. That says a lot, right there, I think.

Sure, but unfortunately the willingness of a state has little to do with the feelings of its people.

**dienekes96**

1) 120 days is fine.
2) "Most" of these guys aren't fine. Some are.
3) Believe the hosannas all you want, but some of these people will be kept within CONUS and without trial. Some will get a trial, and some will be released. That is a good thing. Quite a few will not. Welcome to a very murky world. Maybe it wasn't just that "Bush was evil and hated the Constitution". We'll soon know. As I said, some of these people will continue to be detained without trial under President Obama as well. He's said as much.
4) Fox News is a joke.
5) After last nights coverage of the apparent apotheosis of Barack Obama, neither are ABC, NBC, CNN, or CBS. I've never seen more people whose job it is to dispassionately inform the public about our government go into the tank for a politician. Which also clearly speaks to how they covered the election. In the last few years, the mainstream media has completely abdicated it's responsibility and accountability. So spare me the hatred of Fox News. They are overt, which is actually more "moral" than pretending to be neutral.
6) Though they will turn on him the minute ripping him will sell more papers than praising him.
7) I am excited President Obama is the new president. I don't blame him for the coverage, and appreciate the value his inspiration brings to the table, even without legislation.

**ShumaGorath**

Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?

He abandoned his principles in the face of adversity. Such men are considered cowards once that adversity has passed.

Sorry, it's just the truth. Freedom isn't built on equality for the few and laws that apply only to those who are lucky enough to live within america. If you abandon the high minded ideals of liberty and freedom for all then you don't deserve them ever. Innocent until proven guilty is so cut and dry that it's not even something that should be debatable. It's not right to bear arms, it's not right to marry, it's not right to an education. It's the simple right to exist in a just world. It's right after right to life and right before the pursuit of happiness.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:These aren't criminals. In this specific case he was specifically targetted as an Al Qaeda operative. He's admitted to it.

Again, reserve concepts of guilt, crimes, and rights where they belong, with criminal trials. This is not a crime. This is not some mugger writ large. if you are going to charge with any sort of crime it has to be a war crime-genocide. Otherwise smear him on the road.

Words have meanings, you know.

Genocide
"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

There’s a fine line between resident hardline right winger and raving loon, and in running about saying a terrorist should be charged with genocide, you’re threatening to wander into the second category.

Meanwhile, of course they deserve trial. It’s completely obvious they deserve trial. Like the right to vote, people getting a fair trial is a core part of Western society. It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would ever suggest otherwise. Lots of these people have been charged with doing very horrible things, and plenty probably did those things. But it doesn’t matter, everyone gets a trial, no matter what they’re accused of.

Meanwhile again, does anyone find it odd that the sorts of people that want guns to protect them from their government are the same people that are happy for their government to retain the right to hold someone for as long as it wants without trial?

**sebster**

Hordini wrote:
dogma wrote:There must be a legal framework for this type of matter if we are to hold to the notion that the law is more than simple morality.

Does anyone actually believe this? That the law is more than just a sort of codified morality, that is?

Well yeah. But codifying it and applying by that code and not the passing whim of the judge, it becomes a very different thing to morality.

**sebster**

Hordini wrote:Fox isn't any more (or less) biased than any of the rest of the mainstream media sources. Fox is just an easy scapegoat.

No, FOX gets targeted because it has crap standards. All media is biased, even the most respected media has some bias, but this is kept in line by journalistic standards.

For instance, The Times newspaper in the UK is a very conservative paper, but it has standards, it makes sure its facts are true and supportable before printing them. On the other hand the Daily Mail is also right wing (arguably more populist than right wing, but whatever) but it has crap standards. It doesn’t care if what it says is true or not, as long as its exciting.

**Hordini**

So are you guys saying that we should actually be charging enemy fighters that we capture in battle, who are effectively POWs, with crimes, and then try them, or otherwise simply release them to continue fighting us?

**Hordini**

The driving force behind the media is money, not some respectable journalistic standard. They will print or broadcast what will get them the most readers or viewers, and that is the bottom line.

**dienekes96**

sebster wrote:No, FOX gets targeted because it has crap standards. All media is biased, even the most respected media has some bias, but this is kept in line by journalistic standards.

For instance, The Times newspaper in the UK is a very conservative paper, but it has standards, it makes sure its facts are true and supportable before printing them. On the other hand the Daily Mail is also right wing (arguably more populist than right wing, but whatever) but it has crap standards. It doesn’t care if what it says is true or not, as long as its exciting.

Perhaps that is why the bias shown by the "respected" networks is even more dangerous. One way to lie is to print stories that are not true. Another, far more insidious (and professional) way to influence opinion is to print stories that are true, but remove certain context or use word choices that create a response in the audience not in line with the observational nature of an unbiased source.

As stated, words have meaning. During the election, certain words were chosen to influence opinion on both candidates by almost all major news organizations (including Fox) during standard news stories (not the editorials, where such influence is desired). If you think the voters pushed past the pretense to judge the events, you are naive. And newspapers know this.

This is why the mainstream media bias should absolutely infuriate most of America. These are people given access and incredible influence (due to the laziness of the average human), and what we ask in return for that power is dispassionate reporting.

It is, quite simply, an abuse of power. Again, their "specials" yesterday illustrated a level of prejudice that boggles the mind, and simply reinforces how awful their coverage of the 2008 election was.

And that is coming from someone who voted for President Obama. Someone who woke up at 5 AM yesterday to attend his Inauguration. Someone who is very excited about his presidency.

But I care about truth.

**jp400**

Lets not forget that a bunch of the idiots that are in Gitmo are Insurgents from Iraq. Since its not a war, its a damn police action... you cant call them POW's. They are detainees.

A good portion of the people that are there are actual fighters that were caught and not killed in country.

My unit over the course of our tours sent lots of people away.... (Either dead or alive)

Its pretty easy to tell who to tag and bag.

For example..
IED goes off.... it was command detonated. You follow the wire back to a small house and kick the door in. You find a half dozen people playing dumb. You line them all up and test them for GSR, Nitro ect ect. One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?

Now We have to accept the fact that people like him will be set free?

Hate to quote a marine......... but:
We should have killed them all and let god sort them out!

**whatwhat**

dienekes96 wrote:One way to lie is to print stories that are not true. Another, far more insidious (and professional) way to influence opinion is to print stories that are true, but remove certain context or use word choices that create a response in the audience not in line with the observational nature of an unbiased source.

Yes, obviously this happens. But I can't see how you can argue that the later is worse than the former.

**dogma**

Hordini wrote:So are you guys saying that we should actually be charging enemy fighters that we capture in battle, who are effectively POWs, with crimes, and then try them, or otherwise simply release them to continue fighting us?

I'm saying there should be explicit standards of procedure for the treatment of irregular combatants in the environment of a failed state. That doesn't mean we subject them to civilian criminal law, but it does mean that we make the proceedings more transparent than they currently are. And that means not defaulting to the military as a means of oversight.

**Orlanth**

Frazzled wrote:
Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?

1. that applies to US citizens.
2. That applies to crimes.

He's not a citizen and he didn't commit a crime. He committed genocide and war. He's not wearing a uniform and thus has no rights under the Geneva Convention. As his compatriots routinely used screwdrivers and saws on people, and cut other people's heads off on TV, then he should be treated as they treated others. Frankly, his only right is a right to a bullet to the head after we've finished interrogating him.

In the immortal words of the Hobbit "Stew 'em, baste 'em, put 'em in a pot!"

Ok. This is the main problem.

Frazzled, you dont intend this but you are justifying Al-Quaeda. One of the principle basic recruiting message of Iclamic militants is the assumption that the US and other countries are out to get them, out to do them down, and firmly opposed to them no matter how far Israel oversteps the line. While this is exteme sometimes they are right and when this is true it makes moderate Moslems angry, let alone fanatics.

The whole idea that 'not US citizen = no rights' will bite America on the arse sooner or later. Too many people have sat and watched that and are increasingly unhappy. A number of countries and bloks including the EU have already added the US to the list of countries they will not extradite to over human rights, on the same principles that they wont extradite to Burma or Zimbabwe. It has and will continue to lose the US favour in the world at large. Obama is making the right decision by reviewing Guantanamo detainees. It has also been noted that non US national from allied nations have also been dertained without observation of legal rights. While i have no more sympathy for UK passport holders who support Al-Quaeda many over here are angry that UK passport holders were detained while John Walker was transfered to the main justice system. Furthermore a number of those passport holders were eventually cleared. In this I am more annoyed with poodle Blair than Bush as he did not do enough to secure those persons rights.

Secondly the reaction of 'vengeance' as opposed to justice is doing America no favours. It is ironic that you are now treading the same road as the people you are fighting. They are out for vengeance too. there isnt too much difference between the WTC bombing and an airstrike from the point of view of greiving rerlatives looking at the bodies in the morgue. The US in particular has hit a lot of innocents in its various adventures in the Arab world. Currently in Iraq civilian casualties account for 50% of Iraqis killed by US forces, an unacceptably high figure. You want vengeance. Fine. They will play by your rules. Obama again is trying to regain some moral high ground by distancing from these problems, and not just to site artillery, I hope he doesnt give too much time to the blood baying and deal with these matters in a more civilised way.

**Greebynog**

What Orlanth said. Great post.

**Ghetto_Fight**

Funny how America is still against torture...

Shut this fookin place down!!!!!

**dogma**

I jumped over this post at first, but I feel it needs to be addressed.

Frazzled wrote:
1. that applies to US citizens.
2. That applies to crimes.

This is the worst kind of nationalism. I'm sorry Fraz, I'm sure you're a good guy. But leaning on the law alone to justify your emotional response is not conducive to progress.

Frazzled wrote:
He's not a citizen and he didn't commit a crime. He committed genocide and war.

Individuals cannot go to war, only states can, at least per the modern definition. He also didn't commit genocide, as the WTC was not a cultural group.

Frazzled wrote:
He's not wearing a uniform and thus has no rights under the Geneva Convention.

Actually, non-uniformed combatants do have rights under the Geneva Conventions. The crux of the Bush argument is that we are not at war with any state, and therefore we can do what we want.

Frazzled wrote:
As his compatriots routinely used screwdrivers and saws on people, and cut other people's heads off on TV, then he should be treated as they treated others. Frankly, his only right is a right to a bullet to the head after we've finished interrogating him.

Please don't pretend that you really believe we should reinstate the Code of Hammurabi. Humans are animals, but that is not how we should behave.

Frazzled wrote:
In the immortal words of the Hobbit "Stew 'em, baste 'em, put 'em in a pot!"

Arabs wouldn't taste very good on average, they get too much exercise. Americans, on the other hand, could be counted on to have a good amount of marbling.

**sebster**

dienekes96 wrote:Perhaps that is why the bias shown by the "respected" networks is even more dangerous. One way to lie is to print stories that are not true. Another, far more insidious (and professional) way to influence opinion is to print stories that are true, but remove certain context or use word choices that create a response in the audience not in line with the observational nature of an unbiased source.

As stated, words have meaning. During the election, certain words were chosen to influence opinion on both candidates by almost all major news organizations (including Fox) during standard news stories (not the editorials, where such influence is desired). If you think the voters pushed past the pretense to judge the events, you are naive. And newspapers know this.

This is why the mainstream media bias should absolutely infuriate most of America. These are people given access and incredible influence (due to the laziness of the average human), and what we ask in return for that power is dispassionate reporting.

The problem is that bias cannot be removed. No subject can be reported fully, and as a result every journalist and editor has to make decisions about what parts of a story to include, and what to exclude. The decision to include one fact ahead of another is going to come from personal judgement, which will likely be different to someone else’s judgement.

And to a large extent bias is also good. It makes perfect sense to report on a murder with ‘bias’ that murder is bad, and that the police catching the murderer is good.

Once you accept bias is inevitable and necessary, you have to start looking at professionalism.

And yeah, it means that it is very dangerous to rely on one source for the whole story, but there’s not much that can be done about that. Honestly, with most of the people I know I’d be ecstatic that they’ve seen one story on the issue.

It is, quite simply, an abuse of power. Again, their "specials" yesterday illustrated a level of prejudice that boggles the mind, and simply reinforces how awful their coverage of the 2008 election was.

I suspect the media is on something of downward slope. I certainly think they’re getting worse, but that’s due to an unwillingness to make professional judgements, to critically review what’s come across their desks. Instead they’ve been happy to parrot one side’s claim, then parrot the rebuttal, without ever doing the legwork to find out who’s claims have merit.

While a few websites popped up during the election to challenge the spurious claims of both candidates, those websites shouldn’t have been necessary. News services should have been clearly stating which claims were truthful.

And that is coming from someone who voted for President Obama. Someone who woke up at 5 AM yesterday to attend his Inauguration. Someone who is very excited about his presidency.

But I care about truth.

The coverage of Obama’s inauguration was over the top, and not just in the US. I like to think Obama got home that night watched a little of the coverage and thought ‘well this is all a little embarrassing’.

**sexiest_hero**

"One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?"

Ah the age old "drag a person out, beat him down. LAPD style".

IDK what Us Military you are in but, in the one I'm in what you said is punishable by court martial, and maybe even jail time. If you were ordered to do that, you ask to have the order repeated twice, then you say. "Sir, that is an unlawful order and I can not comply." I'll just assume they slacked off in your basic training and you didn't know about the Military code of conduit.

Think about the damage you could have done, if somebody recorded you rounding up Arab men and beating them like a "Pinata"? A lot more than the shot of GIs passing out blankets and coloring books.

I think saddest of all is you say this openly over the Internet for the world to see.

**dogma**

Props to the above. We need more people like you in the military.

jp400 wrote:Lets not forget that a bunch of the idiots that are in Gitmo are Insurgents from Iraq. Since its not a war, its a damn police action... you cant call them POW's. They are detainees.

A good portion of the people that are there are actual fighters that were caught and not killed in country.

My unit over the course of our tours sent lots of people away.... (Either dead or alive)

Its pretty easy to tell who to tag and bag.

Which also means it should be easy to prove under a reasonable legal framework.

jp400 wrote:
Now We have to accept the fact that people like him will be set free?

They won't be if the system is well designed, and people like you testify to your experiences.

**LuciusAR**

I'm amazed at the attitudes that support the continued existence of this place, which is stain upon the character of the United States and the western world in general.

The key word here is 'suspect', until an inmate has been convicted of an offence in a court of law they are not terrorists. Terrorist is an emotive word that’s dropped constantly into to scare people in complicity. Here in the UK for example increasingly draconian surveillance measures are often dressed up with the terms 'terrorists' and 'paedophiles' as its know that these terms push the right buttons and people willing lap it up. Thankfully increasing numbers of people are seeing through this and I for one am glad about this.

That many inmates are not US citizens is neither here nor there, if you are holding them for crimes against your state then you should afford them the full legal procedure of your state. Anything else is blatant hypocrisy.

I think the ideal situation would be give 12-8 months for a case to be drawn up for each of the inmates, if insufficient evidence is avlaible then send them of their way with a big apology and allot of financial compensation for their destroyed lives. If a case can be drawn up then arrange a court date (and not a millitary court!) If your legal system finds them guilty (with the same required standard of evidence one of your own criminal courts would require) then (and only then) by all means deal with them as you see fit.

Screaming "but their terrorists, we don’t have to give them a trial!", "there not Americans, we don’t have to give them a trial! " or "there not POW's, we don’t have to give them a trial!" is highly dangerous smokescreen. The law applies to everyone or it applies to no one and to suggest otherwise is the start of a very very slippery slope. Perhaps your attitude will change when someone you know is hauled off in the middle of the night for seditious remarks against the state overheard in the pub, only to be told, sorry no trail, he's a suspected terrorist! That’s the logical conclusion of the sorts of attitudes on display.

I'm confident that history will one day view Guantanamo bay with the same kind of horror that the Japanese internment is viewed with today.

**reds8n**

sexiest_hero wrote:"One guy in the house tests positive. Guess who is going to Gitmo after he plays the part of the Pinata in a GI roundup?"

Ah the age old "drag a person out, beat him down. LAPD style".

IDK what Us Military you are in but, in the one I'm in what you said is punishable by court martial, and maybe even jail time. If you were ordered to do that, you ask to have the order repeated twice, then you say. "Sir, that is an unlawful order and I can not comply." I'll just assume they slacked off in your basic training and you didn't know about the Military code of conduit.

Think about the damage you could have done, if somebody recorded you rounding up Arab men and beating them like a "Pinata"? A lot more than the shot of GIs passing out blankets and coloring books.

I think saddest of all is you say this openly over the Internet for the world to see.

Bless you.

Cause those tests are infallible right ?

For example-- and this is going back a few years to when the IRA were active-- they used to swab hands for traces of explosives and this was used as evidence. Until it was discovered that the chemical used in the glossy finish on packs of playing cards also tested positive as explosives. The same chemical was/is (?) found on cigarette packs and adhesive tape.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Greebynog wrote:Frazz: What happened to innocent untill proven guilty?

He abandoned his principles in the face of adversity. Such men are considered cowards once that adversity has passed.

Sorry, it's just the truth. Freedom isn't built on equality for the few and laws that apply only to those who are lucky enough to live within america. If you abandon the high minded ideals of liberty and freedom for all then you don't deserve them ever. Innocent until proven guilty is so cut and dry that it's not even something that should be debatable. It's not right to bear arms, it's not right to marry, it's not right to an education. It's the simple right to exist in a just world. It's right after right to life and right before the pursuit of happiness.

I have abandoned no principles here. I do not believe war criminals have rights. If you are not a US citizen and not on US property you do not have the protections of the US Constitution. If you want those protections, become a territory state of the US. Thats also a clear legal view and the whole reason for Gitmo. As I stated I'm all for a military tribunal to determine if someone is a terrorist or enemy combatant. If combatant you get held until the war is over. If terrorist you are treated as a war criminal.

Here's the other part-where are you going to put the GITMO guys? No state will want them. No nation wants them. Lets free them in the locales of people screaming about how evil we are for having GITMO-see how many miliseconds it will be before they scream NIMBY. Its already happening.

OT but are you calling me a coward?
If so it takes a brave man to put slanders over the internet and not to someone's face.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:I have abandoned no principles here. I do not believe war criminals have rights. If you are not a US citizen and not on US property you do not have the protections of the US Constitution. If you want those protections, become a territory state of the US. Thats also a clear legal view and the whole reason for Gitmo. As I stated I'm all for a military tribunal to determine if someone is a terrorist or enemy combatant. If combatant you get held until the war is over. If terrorist you are treated as a war criminal.

I believe Fraz when he says he hasn't abandoned any principles, because the guy is nothing if not consistent. You're a US citizen, then you get protection because you're on Fraz's team. If not you're not and it's okay to hold you forever without ever seeing if the charges against you are worth a damn. I don't know if anyone here knows Kohlberg's levels of moral development, but Fraz is sounding to me a lot like very heavily locked into Authority thinking. Law is law, society is society and if you don't fit into that model well it sucks to be you. You can argue about greater principles than this but you'll be wasting your time - he won't get it.

Here's the other part-where are you going to put the GITMO guys? No state will want them. No nation wants them. Lets free them in the locales of people screaming about how evil we are for having GITMO-see how many miliseconds it will be before they scream NIMBY. Its already happening.

Come on. The Swiss offer to take inmates has already been mentioned in this thread. Even if you skimmed over that, why are you posting about no nation being willing to take in-mates, like you've been following the issue at all. If you had you'd be aware of the Swiss offer. As it is you're just a guy on the internet making stuff up to suit your ideology.

**sexiest_hero**

BS frazz, I'm sorry to be so harsh but thats bs. Tell that to the German POWs we captured or the Jews we freed. Tell that to the North Veitenam soldiers we captured. Everybody, has protection under the US constitution. its states all men, Not All American men. While at court to pay my wife's speeding ticket some months ago, The Judge said "Here in America, Under the laws of the court, you never have to prove you are Innocent. The state has to prove you are guilty. Beyond any reasonable doubt. This is nothing more than a sad rerun of the WWII detention camps, that we had for Japanese-Americans. And before that the wasteland hell-holes we put Native Americans who were "Resisting our manifest destiny."

Bill of rights article 7 (Amendment IV)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Amendment IV)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Amendment VI)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Here is a little tidbit from the Declaration of Independence . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world"

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

"For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people"

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation"

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

**reds8n**

From Today's Independent

A poll conducted in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration was presented as an illustration of the success of the incoming administration's moves to "manage expectations". Even though the new president's popularity was running at more than 80 per cent, the poll found, people were willing to give Obama a "couple of years" before they expected easily discernible improvement. This, those analysing the poll suggested, was "realistic".

But time limits of any duration are surely unrealistic, except in the case of climate change. In the current perilous international situation, every move in the right direction is to be cherished, however cautious it may seem. Instead, already some people have expressed disappointment that in his first hours as President, Obama moved only as far as to request a 120-day halt to military trials at Guantanamo Bay, while an executive order to close the camp by year-end has been prepared but remains unsigned. Some are irked that Obama made no direct reference to Guantanamo in his inauguration speech, even though such phrases as "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" were clearly drafted with this, alongside many other abuses, in mind.

Obama's campaign pledge to close Guantanamo was one that he interceded himself to "manage expectations" about. While President-elect he admitted that shutting down the notorious detention facilities in Cuba was more difficult that might at first have appeared. He didn't suggest that this was no longer a goal just that it was a tricky manoeuvre to pull off, as it involved working out what to do with many "dangerous individuals".

He is, of course, right. In theory, solving the Guantanamo problem is as easy as pie. All one has to do is decide which of the remaining inmates should be freed, and which should be charged for trial in a US federal court. Yet dealing even with the former group is fraught with difficulty.

Apart from anything else, the human-rights records of a number of the countries involved are such that detainees cannot in good conscience be returned to them. Many detainees themselves fear repatriation, and since the US detained them in the first place, it falls to the US, to set up an open process whereby their claims to asylum can be assessed.

Some of these detainees are relatively easy to deal with. Up to 17 Chinese Uighurs, it is accepted, have good reason to fear return to China. It has already been decided that they will not face charges, and Uighur communities in the States have said they are willing to accommodate them. Yet still they languish in Cuba.It is easy to see why the Bush administration was reluctant to offer asylum to the Uighurs. But it is not much harder to understand that even now an immediate push to resettle them all in the US would alarm many Americans, and quickly reignite fears that Obama is too idealistic a liberal for many powerful tastes. This would be of practical benefit tono-one.

With an eye to fresh starts, and international co-operation, it would be far more acceptable for detainees in this category to be dispersed to many countries – those, preferably, where the individuals concerned have relatives, or where migrant communities are willing and able to offer benign support.

Some countries – Australia and Portugal among them – have already indicated that they would not be averse to accepting released detainees who can't return home. Fifty or 60 detainees have already been cleared for release. Perhaps it is time to reconvene the coalition of nations that came together to mount the military retaliation against Afghanistan, so that the work of resettling those left in Guantanamo as a consequence of that action can begin in earnest

The rehabilitation of these people, who no doubt have been traumatised by their seven years of captivity alone, ought to be shared. The US cannot be expected to atone for is errors alone. Yet, it is plain again that were Gordon Brown to announce unilaterally that Britain would be taking a number of Guantanamo detainees, his declaration might not provoke universal joy in these isles. An international coalition offering asylum to those detainees who have been cleared for release cannot be put together so very quickly. But this is something that Obama must do. It will take time.

And these are only the detainees who are not considered be be an ongoing threat. The rest should indeed be put on federal trial. In general, federal trial has proved far more efficient in dealing with terrorists than the military trials that have now been suspended. For some, this is evidence in itself that they are a better way of achieving justice.

But the trouble here is that Guantanamo cannot be wished away. Much of the evidence against even those whose charges can be independently collaborated has been obtained using torture, illegal rendition, secret prisons, secret courts and, of course, long-term arbitrary detention without trial. In a federal court, therefore, much of the evidence against these people is tainted far beyond use. In some cases, this will apply to all of it.

That possibility, precisely, is the reason why so many observers were so appalled when it became apparent in the early weeks of the Afghanistan war that the US intended to dispense rough justice as it came along. As time has gone on, those problems have only become greater. Hardly anyone has any useful suggestions in the way of practical steps that can be taken in the wake of collapsed trials or acquittals. Yet such eventualities are surely unavoidable.

The rhetoric of human rights is soothing, for it declares that all men are innocent until proven guilty. The facts are less comforting. Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, released into Kuwaiti custody from Guantanamo, was acquitted after trial in Kuwait. It is now fairly certain that he was responsible for a suicide attack last year in Mosul, which killed seven Iraqis.

It is hard enough to envisage an international coalition dispersing those detainees who are not facing charges. But it is even more difficult to persuade oneself that this coalition would further agree to accept some of those who have faced charges, and been released on the "technicality" of torture and abuse sustained over seven years.

Canada, shamefully, has barely objected to the incarceration of the young Canadian, Omar Khadr, even though he was only 15 when he committed his alleged crime. His military trial has been stopped by Obama's intercession, and it is devoutly to be hoped that Canada will now negotiate his return. Unfortunately it isn't hard to work out why it has not done so thus far.

The unpalatable truth about Guantanamo is that international revulsion against it has never been converted into practical consensus about how it should be dismantled. Often, the Bush administration itself rebuffed offers that would have helped with this process. Sometimes, though, there has been barely disguised relief that there was an unpleasant but easy option, whereby problematic individuals could be left in the hands of the US. The unpalatable truth is that they can't.

Underlining is mine.

**Frazzled**

sexiest_hero wrote:BS frazz, I'm sorry to be so harsh but thats bs. Tell that to the German POWs we captured or the Jews we freed. Tell that to the North Veitenam soldiers we captured. Everybody, has protection under the US constitution. its states all men, Not All American men. While at court to pay my wife's speeding ticket some months ago, The Judge said "Here in America, Under the laws of the court, you never have to prove you are Innocent. The state has to prove you are guilty. Beyond any reasonable doubt. This is nothing more than a sad rerun of the WWII detention camps, that we had for Japanese-Americans. And before that the wasteland hell-holes we put Native Americans who were "Resisting our manifest destiny."

Oh and as far as military court goes, It's a lot fiarer than civilian court IMHO. Finding an unfair ruling is pretty hard to do.

POWs are governed by the Geneva Convention and Presidential Orders/legislation implementing that treaty as we are asignatory.

Please show me in the US Constitution where it states all men. Please cite where the US COnstitution extends legal protections to all citizens of the world. That would be a bit smug don't you think?

Note your own example-"here in America." I said in the US. Thats why they had GITMO, It wasn't in the US.
Not going to argue about this any more. Feel free to keep calling me the evil American.

On the positive Murtha has volunteered his district to be be the home of these poor innocents. Something tells me he doesn't mean it.

EDIT: Reds8n I had not seen that. Thanks. Would be nice to see if these countries do accept these individuals, but until they actually do then its talky talky. I had heard about the Chinese and others not wanting to go back, fearing persecution in their home countries. We actually had a similar problem with North Korean prisoners after Korea. Many did not want to go back-not sure what happened to them.