One Year In Prison, Still No Charges

[Firetxmi]

Friday, April 13, 2007

One Year In Prison, Still No Charges

By DAVID CRARY
The Associated Press

NEW YORK - One year after his arrest, an Associated Press photographer is still being held at a prison camp in Iraq by U.S. military officials who have neither formally charged him with a crime nor made public any evidence of wrongdoing.

Bilal Hussein was taken prisoner in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006. Twelve months later, the U.S. military claims it is justified in continuing to imprison him merely because it considers him a security threat.

"April 12 is a sad anniversary for Bilal's AP colleagues worldwide," said the AP's executive editor, Kathleen Carroll. "He has now been held by the U.S. military in Iraq for an entire year without formal charges or the due process that a democratic society demands."

Paul Gardephe, the lawyer handling the case for the AP, recently returned from an extended visit to Iraq, where he spoke with military officials, journalists, Iraqi citizens and - for more than 40 hours - Hussein himself at the Camp Cropper prison near Baghdad's airport.

"Bilal has done nothing to justify a year in detention without charges," Gardephe said. "The military has not provided any credible evidence to support the various accusations of criminal conduct that it has made."

Dozens of journalists - mostly Iraqis - have been detained by U.S. troops or Iraqi security forces during the war, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. Most were released without a trial after short periods, and Hussein is the only one currently being held on such a long-term basis, according to CPJ executive director Joel Simon.

"It's unfathomable to me why, after an entire year, there has been no progress in terms of the legal process moving ahead," Simon said. "If the U.S. government is affirming that they need time to develop evidence … a year is plenty of time."

Hussein, 35, is allowed one-hour visits from family members once a month. His lawyer and AP colleagues also are allowed to see him.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, in a written response Tuesday to AP inquiries, said the case against Hussein has been reviewed four times - most recently in November - by three separate entities in Iraq, among them a review board that includes representatives of the Iraqi government and the U.S.-led coalition.

"Each of these independent, objective, fact-finding reviews considered all available evidence and determined Hussein represented an imperative threat to security and recommended continued detention," Whitman said.

Gardephe dismissed the idea that such hearings constitute due process. He pointed out that Hussein was not present and had no legal representative at those reviews, and had no chance to confront any witnesses against him nor to call witnesses on his own behalf.

AP executives went public with news about Hussein's detention in September after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations. They said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work for the AP found no inappropriate contact with insurgents.

Numerous journalism organizations have voiced support for the AP demand that Hussein be released, and many newspapers have called for that in editorials.

Gardephe, a former federal prosecutor, is compiling a detailed report on the case based on his visit to Iraq. He intends to provide it to U.S. and Iraqi officials to buttress the requests for Hussein's release.

During his visit, Gardephe said he met at length with U.S. military officials, discussing each of the nine informal allegations that have been cited as justifying Hussein's detention.

Gardephe said U.S. officials indicated they lacked solid evidence on seven of the allegations and could not reveal the evidence they did have on the other two allegations because it was classified. One of those allegations is that Hussein offered to provide false identification to a sniper who was seeking to evade capture, while the other is that he took photographs that were synchronized with insurgent explosions, Gardephe said.

Gardephe disputed the validity of both those allegations. False identification cards have long been easily available from a variety of sources in Iraq, and Gardephe said insurgents would likely have a ready supply without having to turn to an AP photographer for one. He also noted that the military didn't even claim Hussein actually provided a false ID, just that he allegedly made an offer.

As for the photo allegation, Gardephe said he examined all of the more than 900 photographs Hussein submitted to the AP during a 20-month period before his detention. "There are no photos that are synchronized with an explosion," he said.

"The absence of evidence leads to the conclusion that Bilal is being held because of the photographs he took for the AP - which were published around the world - and which were part of AP's Pulitzer Prize-winning submission in 2005," Gardephe said.

Hussein is among a number of news photographers and television cameramen working in Iraq's Anbar province who have been arrested.

"We continue to believe that Bilal is being held simply because his photos from volatile Anbar province were unwelcome," said Carroll. "We hold him close in our thoughts as we continue to work toward a resolution that will lead to his freedom."

Gardephe said that during his visits at Camp Cropper, Hussein looked healthy and made no complaints of recent mistreatment.

"He hasn't been interrogated since May 2006, so he clearly is not being held for intelligence value," the lawyer added. "He's just being held to be held."



Link:http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/NEWS/704130382/1039

[tntkop]

One of the statement in that story says, "The military has not provided any credible evidence to support the various accusations of criminal conduct that it has made."

I think he's missing the point.

WE ARE AT WAR.

This is not a criminal case set for prosecution. Paul Gardephe, the lawyer handling the case for the AP, is obviously confused over the difference between criminal trial courts and war.

Before the Associated Press takes on this case, why don't they work on the cases of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg. After all, they were beheaded. What threat were they?

Where was the outcry for Daniel Pearl's death sentence?
What crime did he commit commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

Where was the outcry for Nicholas Berg's death sentence?
What crime did he commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

I'm just one of those voices who gives our country the benefit of the doubt, rather than always siding with the enemy.

[SBL]

I'd be interested to see the context surrounding Mr. Bilal's capture.

[tntkop]

Why is it that everyone automatically assumes America and/or American troops are to blame for something?


Has it ever occurred to anyone that Mr. Balal just MAY have done something wrong? And that maybe he IS a threat?


Since when did intelligence organizations have to start revealing all their sources and information regarding security and inellegence matters?

There are still a restrictions and laws in our American government regarding the release of secret information. And just because the government doesn't "give it up", doesn't mean Ahab-the-Arab is innocent.

That's just more propoganda B.S. driven by anti-American countries and liberal members on the 'left'.

[Dasein]

One of the statement in that story says, "The military has not provided any credible evidence to support the various accusations of criminal conduct that it has made."

I think he's missing the point.

WE ARE AT WAR.

So? Unless he's considered a POW, that is irrelevent. Of course, in Iraq, we are engaged in counter-insurgency operations, but we are not at war with the state of Iraq or even a recognized beligerent (in the legal sense).


This is not a criminal case set for prosecution. Paul Gardephe, the lawyer handling the case for the AP, is obviously confused over the difference between criminal trial courts and war.

No, you are confused in thinking that 'war' offers a carte blanche for idefinite detentions of non-combatants. Either charge him with a crime, classify him as a POW or release him. Those are the options.


Before the Associated Press takes on this case, why don't they work on the cases of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg. After all, they were beheaded. What threat were they?

So, because some greater injustice was commited by someone else, we should ignore lesser injustices? Should the police not investigate robberies because there are still unsolved murders and rapes?

[Dasein]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Mr. Balal just MAY have done something wrong? And that maybe he IS a threat?

If he committed a crime, file charges. There is a legal system in place to handle just that. In the end, it comes down to upholding the rule of law, and indefinite detention without charges is a fundamental violation of that rule.

[tntkop]

Whatever.
Just to confirm my suspicions about you, I pulled one of your posts. This is the first [and only] post I pulled, where you say:

"The simple fact is that governments as a whole are far worse threats than any terrorist organization could be..."

That speaks volumes about you. You libs are all the same.

America is always wrong.
Americas has always been wrong.
And American will always be wrong.

I'll let you get back to watching Rosie O'Donnell and "The View".

[JKD]

Whatever.
Just to confirm my suspicions about you, I pulled one of your posts. This is the first [and only] post I pulled, where you say:

"The simple fact is that governments as a whole are far worse threats than any terrorist organization could be..."

That speaks volumes about you. You libs are all the same.

America is always wrong.
Americas has always been wrong.
And American will always be wrong.

I'll let you get back to watching Rosie O'Donnell and "The View".

Call him a liberal or tell him he hates America or any other generalization if that makes you feel better but he does have a point there. Terrorists can give us a bloody nose but I don't fear Al Queda nearly the same way I feared tens of thousands of Soviet ICBMs.

[tntkop]

File charges? That's funny (not).

We're not in a court of law; we're at war and you obviously do not know the difference.

[tntkop]

The difference is, governments negotiate.
Terrorists do not.

The Soviet Union also never declared war on the premise of killing every non-Soviet in the world.

Whereas Muslim extremists and the Muslim religion call for the death of all infidels. And Muslims define 'infidels' as all non-Muslims.

I guess the difference between us is this:

When a terrorist organization says their goal is to kill all non-Muslims, specifically identifying their hatred and loathing for Americans, liberals believe they can convert them into a non-violent people, and join them in blaming our own government for their lot in life.

But when a terrorist organization says the same thing to a conservative, we take their threats at face value, and instead of wasting time trying to get them together for a big, giant group hug, we take stock in their words and prepare for what they say they are going to do.

The libs think they're winning over the terrorists with kindness and peace offerings. But even the terrorists see these gestures as pitiful and weak.

[JKD]

The difference is, governments negotiate.
Terrorists do not.
The statement you quoted was "The simple fact is that governments as a whole are far worse threats than any terrorist organization could be..." and this is true. Governemts(he didn't specify which one) can be more of a threat than any terrorist organization could ever hope to be. History is littered with examples.


The Soviet Union also never declared war on the premise of killing every non-Soviet in the world. No, but unlike Al Queda if they had made such a statement it wouldn't have been an empty threat.


I guess the difference between us is this:

When a terrorist organization says their goal is to kill all non-Muslims, specifically identifying their hatred and loathing for Americans, liberals believe they can convert them into a non-violent people, and join them in blaming our own government for their lot in life.

But when a terrorist organization says the same thing to a conservative, we take their threats at face value, and instead of wasting time trying to get them together for a big, giant group hug, we take stock in their words and prepare for what they say they are going to do.

The libs think they're winning over the terrorists with kindness and peace offerings. But even the terrorists see these gestures as pitiful and weak. The idea is not to be nice to terrorists it is to dry up their support and recruiting pool. Without support from their populations terrorists can't function or at least will have a much harder go of it.

Terrorists bank on provoking nation states into overreacting.

[Calanen]

Whatever.
Just to confirm my suspicions about you, I pulled one of your posts. This is the first [and only] post I pulled, where you say:

"The simple fact is that governments as a whole are far worse threats than any terrorist organization could be..."

That speaks volumes about you. You libs are all the same.

I'll let you get back to watching Rosie O'Donnell and "The View".

I'm not a lib, and I agree with him on the process. If you detain someone in a Iraq they need to do one of the following:

1) Try him with an international war crime;

2) He would be unlikely to get or need an article 5 hearing, as I doubt the AP photographer is claiming he is a prisoner of war;

3) Turn him over to the Iraqi authorities to be tried under Iraqi law for any offences he may have committed;

4) If none of the above, then, cut him loose.

You cannot just indefinitely detain people without trial. The reason being, lets just hypothetically say (not referring to this guy, I dont know the facts of his case) there is a person who is entirely innocent. 100%, never did anything wrong and got picked up. How could such a person defend themselves or confront their accusers? There is a reason why we do not rely on the government to determine guilt or innocence, because they often make mistakes. This guy is entitled to due process.

[Atlantic Friend]

One of the statement in that story says, "The military has not provided any credible evidence to support the various accusations of criminal conduct that it has made."

I think he's missing the point.

WE ARE AT WAR.

This is not a criminal case set for prosecution. Paul Gardephe, the lawyer handling the case for the AP, is obviously confused over the difference between criminal trial courts and war

Does that mean martial law is in effect ? And that the US Military Code of Justice need not apply ? That habeas corpus has been suspended ?


Before the Associated Press takes on this case, why don't they work on the cases of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg. After all, they were beheaded. What threat were they?

Why couldn't the AP take on BOTH cases, BTW ?


Where was the outcry for Daniel Pearl's death sentence?
What crime did he commit commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?
Where was the outcry for Nicholas Berg's death sentence?
What crime did he commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

Whoa whoa whoa.... Strange argument you're making here. Basically, you're proposing Western journalists held by Coalition forces should be given the same treatment as if they had been captured by Talibans or any of the terror groups operating in Iraq.


I'm just one of those voices who gives our country the benefit of the doubt, rather than always siding with the enemy.

With such arguments as developed earlier in this post, you're mostly one of the voices that strive to deprive your country of the benefit of the doubt, and who thus comforts the real enemy - which is not the AP, BTW.

[martinexsquaddie]

either he's a bad guy and needs to face trial
or he's innocent
if we think hes a bad guy but can't prove it tough let him go

[TheBelgian]

One of the statement in that story says, "The military has not provided any credible evidence to support the various accusations of criminal conduct that it has made."

I think he's missing the point.

WE ARE AT WAR.

This is not a criminal case set for prosecution. Paul Gardephe, the lawyer handling the case for the AP, is obviously confused over the difference between criminal trial courts and war.

Before the Associated Press takes on this case, why don't they work on the cases of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg. After all, they were beheaded. What threat were they?

Where was the outcry for Daniel Pearl's death sentence?
What crime did he commit commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

Where was the outcry for Nicholas Berg's death sentence?
What crime did he commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

I'm just one of those voices who gives our country the benefit of the doubt, rather than always siding with the enemy.

Dude, you're not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. All you're doing is NOT giving this photographer the benefit of the doubt. People should be given due process no matter what. Temporary detainment in case of war without trial is understandable, but a year wihtout even being charged!? I know the US is fighting a war, but I find it hard to believe they could not muster the time, men and resources needed for one trial.

And the Daniel Pearl and NIck Berg refference is a fallacy of epic proportions. Of course they were killed senselessly, and the US government will do what it can to bring those responsible to justice, if it has not already. But the fact that terrorists behave like animals is no reason to lower your own standards of conduct and due process.

[Durandal]

Where was the outcry for Daniel Pearl's death sentence?
What crime did he commit commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

Where was the outcry for Nicholas Berg's death sentence?
What crime did he commit?
What trial did he receive?
What attorney represented him?

I'm just one of those voices who gives our country the benefit of the doubt, rather than always siding with the enemy.

WTF.

Your argument makes no sense and since it seems over several posts across several different you seem to have selective memory I will remind you that in fact, PLENTY of people where both horrified and appalled at what happened to these guys and called for the hunting down of the people responsible for this.

You argument though makes no sense.

Unless you are suggesting that we, as Americans tolerate totalitarian rule and a complete lack of justice.

Your utter faith in a FALLIBLE system makes me wonder though. Our founding fathers were pretty much spot on in this regard. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely. When we no longer question the State then we have given up all rights...

[Jobu]

Iraq is a war zone.

Taking someone prisoner in a war zone is not the same as taking someone prisoner in Bufu, Kansas.

Frankly, I don't care how long he stays incarcerated without charges. Since when you do have to file charges in a war? Is this Operation Enduring Lawsuit? Are we going to sue Al Sadr into submission?

This is a war not law enforcement.

[Kaerry]

Yeah screw justice and all the values the US is fighting for in Iraq, it's a war!

[Jobu]

Yeah screw justice and all the values the US is fighting for in Iraq, it's a war!

We didn't win WWII by taking the SS to court. Did it undermine our sense of justice and our values at home? Of course not. Neither will taking prisoners in the war zone of Iraq.

[Atlantic Friend]

We didn't win WWII by taking the SS to court.

Well, in the end, this is what happened, though... And here we are not talking about whether Iraqi insurgents or AQ terrorists should be prosecuted or killed, but whether an AP photographer can de detained indefinitely without being accused of anything.

I thought AQ, not AP, was the enemy (the detonates-bombs-and-kills-Coalition-soldier kind of enemy), but maybe I got the last letter wrong ?

[Dasein]

Whatever.
Just to confirm my suspicions about you, I pulled one of your posts. This is the first [and only] post I pulled, where you say:

"The simple fact is that governments as a whole are far worse threats than any terrorist organization could be..."

That speaks volumes about you. You libs are all the same.

America is always wrong.
Americas has always been wrong.
And American will always be wrong.

I'll let you get back to watching Rosie O'Donnell and "The View".

What terrorist organization can come close to Stalin's purges? how many terrorist groups run gulags? Could a terrorist group pull off China's Cultural Revolution?

When we talk about the dead from terrorist attacks, we're usually talking a few dozen, maybe hundreds in the case of the worst ones. When we look at victims of government brutality, we speak of hundreds of thousands, even millions of dead. Terrorism does not even come close to the death and horror inflicted by even a single oppressive regime, let alone all governments in history.

[Laworkerbee]

I think MP.net member ****Monkey was involved in detaining this guy; perhaps comeone can steer him towards this thread.

He might shed some light on the subject for you all.

[Jobu]

Well, in the end, this is what happened, though... And here we are not talking about whether Iraqi insurgents or AQ terrorists should be prosecuted or killed, but whether an AP photographer can de detained indefinitely without being accused of anything.

I thought AQ, not AP, was the enemy (the detonates-bombs-and-kills-Coalition-soldier kind of enemy), but maybe I got the last letter wrong ?

He's been accused of plenty, just not in a court. He was accused of helping the enemy in a war zone. That makes him more AQ than AP in my eyes.

[Dasein]

So why not charge him, either under US law or Iraqi law?

[Jobu]

So why not charge him, either under US law or Iraqi law?

Because this is a war, not a lawsuit.

[Dasein]

Because this is a war, not a lawsuit.

That makes no sense. People are routinely charged with crimes relating to conduct in a war and during a war. For example, when a group of German saboteurs was captured in the US during World War II, they were tried in US courts, they were not detained indefintely.

I have to wonder, why do you have such contempt for the rule of law?

[Hollis]

So why not charge him, either under US law or Iraqi law?


I would say, use your google foo and search the various Legal arguments on this topic.

Part of Law is whose Jurisdiction does this come under?

There is Federal Criminal Code, US Military, International agreements etc.......... Saying his rights is being violate with out citing which law is being violate is meaningless, or even what action to be taken.

Also US criminal codes generally does not operate outside of the the US. All of this issues have been argued in courts. Iraqi Law does may or may not have jurisdiction over a US military instillation. Any effect could come under a negotiated agreement between the US and the Iraqi government.

During WWII German POWs where held in the US without a trial, etc.......... They were held under the Geneva convention (an agreement).

[Dasein]

The issue, however, is not one of jurisdictional disputes - if he were to be charged, and the lawyers were wrangling over which laws applied, that would be one thing, but at this point, he has not been charged under any law.



During WWII German POWs where held in the US without a trial, etc.......... They were held under the Geneva convention (an agreement).

Right, they were held as POWs, which is a seperate form of detention. POWs are afforded certain protections, and are released upon the end of hostilities. While the Geneva Conventions codified many normative practices concerning the treatment of POWs, war prisoners have been afforded special status for centuries. If we were to classify this person as a POW, that would be fine, too.

[Hollis]

The issue, however, is not one of jurisdictional disputes - if he were to be charged, and the lawyers were wrangling over which laws applied, that would be one thing, but at this point, he has not been charged under any law.



Right, they were held as POWs, which is a seperate form of detention. POWs are afforded certain protections, and are released upon the end of hostilities. While the Geneva Conventions codified many normative practices concerning the treatment of POWs, war prisoners have been afforded special status for centuries. If we were to classify this person as a POW, that would be fine, too.

I believe under the Geneva conventions he would have been shot. Terrorist (Non-unformed Soldiers) can be shot on sight. He is classified.


As for Jurisdiction again Google the arguments.

[Jobu]

If you want to wait until the war is over and then file charges, go ahead. I'm not about to ask the military to run the war like a court of law where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You'll never win a war with those conditions.

I have no contempt for the rule of law. I just accept that certain rights are forefeit in a war zone. You have no freedom of speech, you have no freedom of assebly, you have no freedom of movement. It's a warzone for Pete's ske. Use a little common sense. If you're caught helping the enemy, you don't get a speedy trial with a court-appointed attorney to defend you so you can get off on a technicality and go back to helping the enemy.

The military's need to control the war zone supercedes your rights as a civilian once you enter that area. When you're no longer deemed a threat, they can file charges or let you go. Until then, I have no problem with the military locking your ass up indefinitely.

What next? A lawyer looking over the shoulder of every Marine telling him what he can and cannot shoot at?

[Dasein]

I believe under the Geneva conventions he would have been shot. Terrorist (Non-unformed Soldiers) can be shot on sight. He is classified.

He is a reporter, not a terrorist, or is that distinction lost on you? I can understand that the US military might not want people to report on certain things they do in Iraq, but exposing the truth is now terrorism?

[Jobu]

He is a reporter, not a terrorist, or is that distinction lost on you? I can understand that the US military might not want people to report on certain things they do in Iraq, but exposing the truth is now terrorism?

The US military considers him a security threat. That means he's probably more than just a reporter telling negative stories.

[Dasein]

The US military considers him a security threat. That means he's probably more than just a reporter telling negative stories.

Then charge him with a crime.

[Jobu]

Then charge him with a crime.

No need to. He's a security threat in a warzone, not a mugger in Central Park.

[Dasein]

He is a noncombatant being detained on allegations of being a security threat. If he was doing something wrong, charge him and let the courts decide if he is guilty and deseriving punishment. If he is not to be charged, then release him or classify him as a POW. The US, by detaining him without charges, only weakens themselves. They come off as hypocrites - they preach the rule of law, but when pressed, abandon those convictions. Again, why do you have such contempt for the rule of law, Jobu?

[Jobu]

He is a noncombatant being detained on allegations of being a security threat. If he was doing something wrong, charge him and let the courts decide if he is guilty and deseriving punishment. If he is not to be charged, then release him or classify him as a POW. The US, by detaining him without charges, only weakens themselves. They come off as hypocrites - they preach the rule of law, but when pressed, abandon those convictions. Again, why do you have such contempt for the rule of law, Jobu?

There are different sets of standards for Central Park in peacetime and for a warzone.

Can't make it any simpler than that.

[Hollis]

He is a noncombatant being detained on allegations of being a security threat. If he was doing something wrong, charge him and let the courts decide if he is guilty and deseriving punishment. If he is not to be charged, then release him or classify him as a POW. The US, by detaining him without charges, only weakens themselves. They come off as hypocrites - they preach the rule of law, but when pressed, abandon those convictions. Again, why do you have such contempt for the rule of law, Jobu?

Maybe if you repeat yourself ten more times, we still won't get it. Your not a lawyer, your pandering a pro-tango argument.

Your bias is well noted when you stated:

"He is a reporter, not a terrorist, or is that distinction lost on you? I can understand that the US military might not want people to report on certain things they do in Iraq, but exposing the truth is now terrorism?"

Seem you have already set up YOUR court and your the judge. Sorry you do not have jurisdiction on this issue.

All we are getting is your LEGAL opinion. rofl

[Argyll]

Soon the Jails in Iraq will be bursting at the seems, which is a very dangerous situation, should these prisoners decide to riot and take hostages, US or Iraqi.

[Jobu]

Soon the Jails in Iraq will be bursting at the seems, which is a very dangerous situation, should these prisoners decide to riot and take hostages, US or Iraqi.

Clearly, they have a big problem with crime. Car bombs going off in markets are not exactly misdemeanors.

[Dasein]

There are different sets of standards for Central Park in peacetime and for a warzone.

Can't make it any simpler than that.

While there may be, none of these standards allow for indefinte detention without either some formal charge or a classification as a POW.

[Dasein]

Seem you have already set up YOUR court and your the judge. Sorry you do not have jurisdiction on this issue.

As opposed to your objective classification of him as a terrorist? How about you stop making unsubstnatiated, biased claims yourself?

[Hollis]

As opposed to your objective classification of him as a terrorist? How about you stop making unsubstnatiated, biased claims yourself?

AGAIN USE GOOGLE so you have a clue.

"

The "Geneva Protocol" in question is the "Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." This lays down the "law" for situations where an army finds itself fighting non-conventional forces that themselves operate from within civilian areas: The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas. Those who are actually fighting the war are not considered "protected persons." Only civilians are granted the status of "protected persons" whose rights cannot be violated with impunity.
The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas, the Jenin terrorists, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and all of the other terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations, in one sentence: This sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28. It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.""

[Argyll]

When you overpopulate the Jails, irrespective of the crime commited/ reason for detention, it creates a very unhealthy situation.

Incase you hadn't noticed, there have been thousands detained since Jan, these facilities were not built for such large numbers, and those who may very well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, stand more chance of being swayed by one faction or another whilst incarcereted, which in my opinion is pretty counterproductive, especially if they were the family bread winner, and their families are now husband less, Father less, and I'm not talking about those who have clearly been caught in the acts of commiting crimes, or have affiliations to certain organisations, I'm talking about the innocents caught up in it all.
It's all very well using this bullshyt excuse "It's a war, these things happen".....You had better get ready for some serious backlash if the Democrats decide to withdraw the majority of the Military and the Iraqis have no choice but to release those detained......If I was detained for no reason, over a short period of time, I start resenting those who detained me.....as I'm sure you would feel the same.

[Jobu]

While there may be, none of these standards allow for indefinte detention without either some formal charge or a classification as a POW.

I disagree. Has the Supreme Court ordered the military to charge him with a crime yet? If not, one can assume they disagree with your interpretation of the law too.

Why do you hate rule of law Dasein?

[Dasein]

AGAIN USE GOOGLE so you have a clue.

He is a civilian reporter. Your argument makes no sense, as you seem to ignore this crucial bit of information. He was not detained while carrying a weapon or engaging in other acts of violence, so he would be classified as a protected person, namely a civilian.

[natsu-chan]

jobu
war? what war?
is the relatively peaceful northern kurdish enclave of iraq a 'warzone' also?
when does the war end and who gets to declare that it has concluded?
i think this case has parallels to the gitmo cases imo; senior law lords and respected international jurists and even the UK AG has called into question the legality or fairness of indefinitely detaining suspects without trial. blair has called the camp an 'anomoly'.
your declaration that we are at 'war' is self-serving and convenient.
some other poster alluded to the gruesome killings of berg and pearl. that's a not the issue here. we don't succumb to barbarism because the other side pratices it. referencing WW2 is fatuous to this case.
there have been cases in which evidence has been presented in such a way that sources and methods have been protected. why not do the same here? extrajudicial detention certainly is'nt the best advertisement for our democratic way of life.

[Jobu]

When you overpopulate the Jails, irrespective of the crime commited/ reason for detention, it creates a very unhealthy situation.

Incase you hadn't noticed, there have been thousands detained since Jan, these facilities were not built for such large numbers, and those who may very well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, stand more chance of being swayed by one faction or another whilst incarcereted, which in my opinion is pretty counterproductive, especially if they were the family bread winner, and their families are now husband less, Father less, and I'm not talking about those who have clearly been caught in the acts of commiting crimes, or have affiliations to certain organisations, I'm talking about the innocents caught up in it all.
It's all very well using this bullshyt excuse "It's a war, these things happen".....You had better get ready for some serious backlash if the Democrats decide to withdraw the majority of the Military and the Iraqis have no choice but to release those detained......If I was detained for no reason, over a short period of time, I start resenting those who detained me.....as I'm sure you would feel the same.


I tend to give our military the benefit of the doubt when they detain someone that it's not for "no reason".

Obviously there's a reason.

[Argyll]

Now that Iraq is in control of its own destiny, why is it not down to the Iraqi's themselves to decide who is and who isn't a threat to their Security.....If this was the case, then all males between 12 and deathbed should be considered a threat to their Operations.....oh wait, better add that female population between 12 and deathbed as well to the list of Security risks, as there has been several female suicide bombers.....that aside, I know what you're getting at.

[Dasein]

I disagree. Has the Supreme Court ordered the military to charge him with a crime yet? If not, one can assume they disagree with your interpretation of the law too.

That makes no sense. It is common practice to charge people with crimes once they are arrested - the Supreme Court is very rarely involved. Second, the Supreme Court cannot act without a case coming before it, the Court cannot simply order him to be charged, but rather a case would have to work it's way through inferior courts up to the Supreme Court.

[Jobu]

jobu
senior law lords and respected international jurists and even the UK AG has called into question the legality or fairness of indefinitely detaining suspects without trial. blair has called the camp an 'anomoly'.


Are these senoir law lords, international jurists, the UK AG, and Mr. Blair members of the US Supreme Court?

Frankly, their opinions of how we adhere to our own laws is meaningless to me. If our SC says we have to charge someone, we charge him. If they don't say it, we don't have to. It's really as simple as that in my eyes.

[Hollis]

Now that Iraq is in control of its own destiny, why is it not down to the Iraqi's themselves to decide who is and who isn't a threat to their Security.....If this was the case, then all males between 12 and deathbed should be considered a threat to their Operations.....oh wait, better add that female population between 12 and deathbed as well to the list of Security risks, as there has been several female suicide bombers.....that aside, I know what you're getting at.

I hope Iraq is in control of it's destiny or will be soon. That can mean we (Military) can leave.

It seems we are in some sort of in-between period of Iraqis having control and still needing help with it.

Some of this reminds me of the story of a guy who grabbed a lions tail. After he got a hold if it, he did not want to let go, nor did he want to hold on to it any more.

[Jobu]

That makes no sense. It is common practice to charge people with crimes once they are arrested - the Supreme Court is very rarely involved. Second, the Supreme Court cannot act without a case coming before it, the Court cannot simply order him to be charged, but rather a case would have to work it's way through inferior courts up to the Supreme Court.

Well, I don't think this guy was just "arrested." I seriously doubt he was read his Miranda rights, lol. The military is not bound by the same conditions as a policeman in the theater of war.

[Hollis]

That makes no sense. It is common practice to charge people with crimes once they are arrested - the Supreme Court is very rarely involved. Second, the Supreme Court cannot act without a case coming before it, the Court cannot simply order him to be charged, but rather a case would have to work it's way through inferior courts up to the Supreme Court.


NO the SC can issue a writ to call a case up from the lower courts.

BTW the SC can refuse to hear any case.

[Dasein]

NO the SC can issue a writ to call a case up from the lower courts.

True enough, but moot as the situation has not even made it's way into the US court system yet.

[Hollis]

True enough, but moot as the situation has not even made it's way into the US court system yet.


That is a good question. Under tort law all one needs is damages to initiate a case. My understanding that there have been numerous legal actions filed on the behalf of those incarcerated as terrorists,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067906/

[natsu-chan]

"Are these senoir law lords, international jurists, the UK AG, and Mr. Blair members of the US Supreme Court?

Frankly, their opinions of how we adhere to our own laws is meaningless to me. If our SC says we have to charge someone, we charge him. If they don't say it, we don't have to. It's really as simple as that in my eyes."

that the opinions of those with whom the US has decided to prosecute the WoT don't mean a damn where you're concerned has been acknowledged.
there is a recognised judicial code even in times of war.
we are'nt at war.
the man is an iraqi citizen afaik. as argyll noted, should he be a security threat then surely it is up the iraqis to assess, process and incarcerate him as such. at the moment he is being detained on the basis of allegations made by those partial to the idea of incarcerating him indefinitely.
it's the principle that matters. do we abide by our own rules/laws or do we cite extenuating circumstances at our convenience as excuses not to follow extablished due process? what does it look like to an iraqi reading about this case?
sheesh, even saddam got a trial (however hastily it was concluded; and that is no apologia btw)

[Hollis]

He is a civilian reporter. Your argument makes no sense, as you seem to ignore this crucial bit of information. He was not detained while carrying a weapon or engaging in other acts of violence, so he would be classified as a protected person, namely a civilian.


You keep citing he is a reporter, OK does that mean that is all he is?

UBL is also a son, husband, and a mass murderer.

If you listen to jihad johnny family, he was just a poor confused young man.

[Laworkerbee]

Notice how the article does not say a thing about why he was detained?

Does filming attacks for insurgents to be made later as propaganda pieces entitle one to detention?

I was say hell yes it does!

[Argyll]

Normally I'd agree, but I fail to see the difference here when all the Videos that Dronetek posted were also propaganda of sorts, just because it comes from the good guys.....it's still propaganda.....The difference here is that WE are percieved as the good guys so it's ok to make and distribute the said material.

Now, if a member of the media has been fore warned by an insurgent group, that it's going to attack a target, then that's obviously morally wrong, especially if you're part of a Western newsgroup......Freelancer are there for their own gains, so it's their choices, if it's a paycheck over moralty issues, then morality doesn't put beans on the table.

I have videotaped Terrorist/insurgent attacks on us, if I was to show them, from our perspective, I'd be seen as a good guy.....do I risk being detained?........

If there was a law broken in Iraq, by filming such attacks, then surely that is up to the Iraqi's to take action on, and deal with accordingly.....Unless the camerman in question was the planner of the attack, I don't see what Laws that can be used to detain somebody.....if anyone does know, can they post it.....

There was massive problems with the media back in 2004, they'd turn up within minutes of attacks, or would be seen setting up in strange locations, then an attack would go down, that's before they were targeted themselves......personally, I wouldn't be risking it

[Laworkerbee]

I see what your saying Argyll and I agree with your points

I'm going from what I can remember about what **** Monkey told us a while back about some insurgents they detained along with a "journo" I sent him a PM directing him to this thread to see if he can clarify things.

[Firetxmi]

Normally I'd agree, but I fail to see the difference here when all the Videos that Dronetek posted were also propaganda of sorts, just because it comes from the good guys.....it's still propaganda.....The difference here is that WE are percieved as the good guys so it's ok to make and distribute the said material.

Now, if a member of the media has been fore warned by an insurgent group, that it's going to attack a target, then that's obviously morally wrong, especially if you're part of a Western newsgroup......Freelancer are there for their own gains, so it's their choices, if it's a paycheck over moralty issues, then morality doesn't put beans on the table.

I have videotaped Terrorist/insurgent attacks on us, if I was to show them, from our perspective, I'd be seen as a good guy.....do I risk being detained?........

If there was a law broken in Iraq, by filming such attacks, then surely that is up to the Iraqi's to take action on, and deal with accordingly.....Unless the camerman in question was the planner of the attack, I don't see what Laws that can be used to detain somebody.....if anyone does know, can they post it.....

There was massive problems with the media back in 2004, they'd turn up within minutes of attacks, or would be seen setting up in strange locations, then an attack would go down, that's before they were targeted themselves......personally, I wouldn't be risking it

Excellent post! Quoted for truth and [gasp] sensibility!

[tntkop]

Dasein - You say, "He is a reporter, not a terrorist, or is that distinction lost on you?"

So a reported can't be a terrorist, right? What about the Iraqi who infiltrated the Iraqi Police Force and received police training by the American and Iraqi goverments, then showed up to "work" one day and blew up his car, killing nearly a hundred people...
I guess since he was a policeman, then he wasn't a terrorist either?

Why are you - and others like you - so quick to cast down guilt on America and automatically take up the cause for suspected terrorists?

Consider this: As bad as you believe our government is, under Saddam Hussein's regime, we'd never heard a word about that "reporter". And you know why? Becuase he and his entire family would have already been murdered by the Iraqi government. No trial. No due process. No press coverage.

And as far as holding him without charging him with a crime, that's legal. It happens every day in America. Did you know you can hold a suspect -under certain circumstances - for long periods of time without filing charges?

That happens in everyday criminal courts. So why is it so difficult for you to accept the same rules during wartime?

[Atlantic Friend]

Because this is a war, not a lawsuit.

Then what is the purpose of the US Military Code of Justice ? Or of military justice in general ? There is also an supposedly fucntioning Iraqi administration which could detain and convict the man, if he's a suspected agent of AQ, or has helped organize attacks, or even had prior knowledge of them.

It is a grave accusation to imply he is AQ or helped them in any way, and a heinous crime if he indeed is or did it - personally, I'd rather see him either cleared of all charged or given the appropriate harsh punishment than letting him into a grey zone. Why can't he be prosecuted for that either under US or Iraqi law ? Interrogated so that one learns the names of his contacts or accomplices ?

If, say, an Israeli reporter was detained for more than a year by, say, French troops operating in Chad without even being officially charged of anything, I guess many would find it's time for France to either charge or release the guy with a full apology.

[Atlantic Friend]

Why are you - and others like you - so quick to cast down guilt on America and automatically take up the cause for suspected terrorists?

As a citizen of a democracy, I just happen to prefer it when just being suspected does not mean you can be held indefinitely without ever being charged of anything.

As a citizen of a democracy, I also prefer terrorist suspects to be charged and submitted to thorough police and intel work, because if the suspicion is indeed well-grounded, then I want them and their friends caught and eliminated as a threat.

Now you can call this anti-Americanism until your turn blue in the face, but I won't budge.


Consider this: As bad as you believe our government is, under Saddam Hussein's regime, we'd never heard a word about that "reporter". And you know why? Becuase he and his entire family would have already been murdered by the Iraqi government. No trial. No due process. No press coverage.

I entirely agree. And that is why I'd rather not rip a page off the Saddam Hussein Coloring Book of Swift Baathist Justice. Right now we got the "no trial" and "no due process" down to pat - when do we get to the "murder him with all his relatives" part, that sounds fun ?


And as far as holding him without charging him with a crime, that's legal. It happens every day in America. Did you know you can hold a suspect -under certain circumstances - for long periods of time without filing charges?

What are the circumstances that allow you to do that ? Do they apply to the case at hand ? Who allows the detention, and what is the normal procedure ? If circumstances apply and procedure have been foloowed - if, to make it short, the law has been respected, then all is well. If not, don't be too surprised if people don't have much truck with unlawful processes.

[Argyll]

I see what your saying Argyll and I agree with your points

I'm going from what I can remember about what **** Monkey told us a while back about some insurgents they detained along with a "journo" I sent him a PM directing him to this thread to see if he can clarify things.

That journo had traces of explosive on him, and was part of the IED making/planting team IIRC, that's why he was detained by ****monkeys unit.

[Durandal]

And as far as holding him without charging him with a crime, that's legal. It happens every day in America. Did you know you can hold a suspect -under certain circumstances - for long periods of time without filing charges?

That happens in everyday criminal courts. So why is it so difficult for you to accept the same rules during wartime?

Stop talking.

Seriously, this is the biggest pile of crap I have seen.

We cannot LEGALLY hold a perp for a year without charges. Oh, we love doing it to "possible" terrorists, but if you are an American in America and not a terrorist or some dude carrying a resistant strain of TB, you get your time in front of a judge and if a felony, a jury.

You talk a whole lot.

The fact that I disagree with you is irrelevant.

The fact that in 67% of your posts you have spouted words that are either false (because you o not know better or care) or lies (in a deliberate attempt to support your point) is.

[Laworkerbee]

That journo had traces of explosive on him, and was part of the IED making/planting team IIRC, that's why he was detained by ****monkeys unit.

Yeah ****monkeys unit detained another guy entirely which I've been told has also been released.

[tntkop]

Durandal - I'll offer you a little information before you stick your other foot in your mouth. The manner in which you present your position is better suited to a "Does not, does too"-style of debate. The following is probably above your comprehension level, but I'll do my best to enlighten you....for your sake.

So...

You have to look at the circumstances under which the journalist was apprehended. There is evidence he was connected to a bomb-making factory and had traces of explosive residue on his clothing, which would classify him as an "enemy combatant".

The following is from, [I]"Civil Liberties in Time of War", published by the Congressional Research Service.

"Whoever fits the definition of an enemy combatant MAY BE HELD WITHOUT BEING CHARGED, and has no right to an attorney, and (according the the Justice Department) federal judges have no right to interfere with exective judgements. A Justice Department brief for the Fourth Circuit argued: 'The court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination. Going beyond that determination would require the courts to enter an area in which they have no competence, intrude upon the Constitutional prerogative of the Commander in Chief...and possible create a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to the enemies of the United States.'

Enemy combatants is another term for unlawful combatants.

Lawful combatants are held as prisoners of war and may not be prosecuted for criminal violations for belligerent acts that do not constitute war crimes. Lawful combatants wear uniform with a fixed distinctive emblem and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

On November 26, 2002, the General Counsel of the Defense Department defined ENEMY COMBATANTS as an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained FOR THE DURATION OF AN ARMED CONFLICT.

In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, for example, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban.

In applying this definition, we note our consistency with the observation of the Supreme Courts of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1(1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the miltary arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

Durandal - You can arrive at your own conclusions. Sounds like the law IS being followed...

[Firetxmi]

There is evidence he was connected [in some fashion] to a bomb-making factory and had traces of explosive residue on his clothing, which would classify him as an "enemy combatant".


Where did you get this info from?

[tntkop]

From a liberal website.

[Firetxmi]

From a liberal website.

Care to enlighten us all, since I cannot find this info that you cite as truth?

[WARPIG]

Care to enlighten us all, since I cannot find this info that you cite as truth?


Not sure where your condescending attitude is coming from, but I suggest you lighten up. If there were credible sources and evidence on either side of this issue, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.



That being said.. Keep in mind that applying typical civilian criminal law or function to the US military's actions during conflict is going to be way off the mark.


US Military have different doctrine, rules, and tactics when it comes to detainees. Military Police use a word called apprehension. Most people equate apprehension for arrest. In actuality, an apprehension or detention is simply being held. There are various reasons for apprehension. I might apprehend a person I feel is suspect, suspicious, or simply has information that might be dangerous or helpful. I can apprehend someone to keep them away from danger. It is simply a step used to establish security and control. That is what most of these detainees are being held for. Now, as pointed out.. this doesn't mean that a long term apprehension is good for winning hearts and minds. But, for those trying to grasp at legality and apply their own understanding of civil law (or lack thereof) to how the military his handling things, you are misinformed.

[Firetxmi]

Not sure where your condescending attitude is coming from, but I suggest you lighten up. If there were credible sources and evidence on either side of this issue, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.



It is in response to tnt's continuous inflammatory and condescending comments in all threads on this forum.

I was simply asking where he saw this, because I would like to see it if he has evidence that this guy had bomb residue on him, etc. I agree we wouldn't be having this conversation if there was evidence like that. That is why it peaked my interest.

I will tone it down.

[Durandal]

Durandal - You can arrive at your own conclusions. Sounds like the law IS being followed...

i'd like you to present me with ecvidence that has nothing to do with a military conflict or enemies of the State.

You claimed that our civil courts are doing it all the time...implying that this is a common event, where perps get not judge and/or jury and never get charged.

You listed laws that deal with .00001% if the cases in the U.S.

Try again...

And take your lithium before your respond.

[WARPIG]

OK.. I understand that you virtual legal eagles think you have rules of war and civil law in the US cornered.. but the condescending and insulting banter needs to get toned down. None of you seem to be talking about the same thing yet all have some valid points you could draw from each other. Durandal, I think you are missing the point here. I don't know if it is some predisposed inclination to simply ignore the valid points that don't support your view or if you simply missed the pertinent info. tntkop's poor delivery of his post is likely a factor in the arguementative nature of this debate. You guys are going now where with this.

[Dasein]

Durandal - You can arrive at your own conclusions. Sounds like the law IS being followed...

You didn't cite any actual laws, merely the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. The closest thing to a law you did reference was Ex Parte Quirin, which conflicts with Ex Parte Milligan, so the precedent is not absolute by any means, and even then, precedent can be reversed should the Supreme Court rule otherwise. Further, Ex Parte Quirin does not grant the state the right to detain people without charges or without access to counsel, and in the case of Quirin, the charges against them were quite specific.

[Daniel San]

Obviously, this case is all about whether or not, when a State's security is possibly in jeopardy, the Rule of law must prevail.

The Rule of law entitles any person to the right of controlling the legality of his imprisonment (Habeas corpus). Even if the Protocols additionnal to the Geneva Convention's do not bind the United States, therefore limiting the protection of insurgents (giving them lawful combatant status), the United States and Iraq are bound by the Conventions which have, over the years, become part of international customs.

Since this photographer is being held for some kind of punishable offence, he should be allowed to know what he is accused of and have the possibility to defend himself against those charges.


Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, ***, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment ****ounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Of course, you'll notice that such a person mustn't be actively involved in the hostilities to be afforded such a protection. But this must be proven.

A country like the United States which upholds the Rule of law, recognizes the right to control the legality of one's imprisonment. International law does too. It all boils down to deciding if security concerns must prevail over fundamental principals of justice.

The true danger in this balancing act is who decides what must prevail. I'd prefer an independent and impartial court of justice.

Also, relying solely on what is legal or not isn't the best of ideas. Justice must be based on principals not legality: I know it's extreme, but nazi law was by definition absolutely legal.

[Jobu]

It all boils down to deciding if security concerns must prevail over fundamental principals of justice.

The true danger in this balancing act is who decides what must prevail. I'd prefer an independent and impartial court of justice.


In a war zone? The military must decide. The civilian courts can go fly a kite. There's nothing impartial about war.

[Daniel San]

Actually, there is a clear distinction between Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello, that is Justice of war and Justice in war.

The first is by nature partial for its goal is to determine if a war is justifiable, the second must be impartial and without regard to who is right or wrong. Otherwise, the protection offered by international humanitarian law would be a farce.

[Jobu]

Actually, there is a clear distinction between Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello, that is Justice of war and Justice in war.

The first is by nature partial for its goal is to determine if a war is justifiable, the second must be impartial and without regard to who is right or wrong. Otherwise, the protection offered by international humanitarian law would be a farce.

I think I've been saying that all along, more or less. ;)
I have no faith in international institutions.

[Daniel San]

O man of little faith! p-)

[Durandal]

Durandal, I think you are missing the point here. I don't know if it is some predisposed inclination to simply ignore the valid points that don't support your view or if you simply missed the pertinent info.

Not too sure what you mean there Warpig...

Did I miss something?

[WARPIG]

Not too sure what you mean there Warpig...

Did I miss something?

Yeah.. that's what I was getting at.... lol.


I get that tntkop's condescending post style and rather weak arguement doesn't really inspire your open mind.. but you took the opportunity to simply gloss over any valid remarks he may have made.

Just trying to do what I can to keep the debate moving forward.

[Durandal]

Yeah.. that's what I was getting at.... lol.


I get that tntkop's condescending post style and rather weak arguement doesn't really inspire your open mind.. but you took the opportunity to simply gloss over any valid remarks he may have made.

Just trying to do what I can to keep the debate moving forward.

You are asking me to squeeze blood from turnips man...

[Calanen]

In a war zone? The military must decide. The civilian courts can go fly a kite. There's nothing impartial about war.

But even the military have the courts martial.

[turska]

Yeah. If a person is held, he should at least be told why he is being held.

Even the army of the democratic nation cant round up people and sent them into camps without telling why or for how long the captivity will be.

POW's and such are different matter as they know why and how long they are being held. :)

[Hollis]

Yeah. If a person is held, he should at least be told why he is being held.

Even the army of the democratic nation cant round up people and sent them into camps without telling why or for how long the captivity will be.

POW's and such are different matter as they know why and how long they are being held. :)


What makes you think he has not been told, or does not know why he is incarcerated?

Also your POW statement, If he is a terrorist, then he is not a POW or even a "criminal". He is lucky to be incarcerated and not just shot on sight.

BTW, did you catch the pitures of the Iraqi civil servants being executed/murdered by Iraqi Terrorists? Did you even post a condemnation of that in that thread?

Edited to add:

Turksa, here is the link:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110121

Seems those who whine the most about the US, are mute on the butchery the tango commit. I greatly puzzled by that fact.

[WARPIG]

I can't see a legal infraction when it comes to HOLDING these terrorists while we in a war on terror. Considering we openly tell the whole friggin world that we keep them at GITMO and allow the scrutiny of a microscope on the place should be evidence that things are on the up and up. I don't think that the lack of a legal infraction makes it right however. No, it isn't quite kosher to keep even a terrorist without some form of charge, accusation, or anything like it. But, then again, what do you charge these guys with? They are there so that they can't cause harm.

Also, consider that 3 hots and a cot and maybe some hard questioning is a damn sight better treatment than the terrorists have been giving their captives. I mean, how many people have been tortured, blown up, shot, beheaded, and otherwise brutalized at the hands of terrorists for "crimes against Islam?" I mean, isn't that a formal charge in the eyes of a Jihadist? I guess my question is that being charged or even tried for crimes by terrorists doesn't really justify being held captive, tortured, and killed does it?

[Willy]

I can't see a legal infraction when it comes to HOLDING these terrorists while we in a war on terror. Considering we openly tell the whole friggin world that we keep them at GITMO and allow the scrutiny of a microscope on the place should be evidence that things are on the up and up. I don't think that the lack of a legal infraction makes it right however. No, it isn't quite kosher to keep even a terrorist without some form of charge, accusation, or anything like it. But, then again, what do you charge these guys with? They are there so that they can't cause harm.

Also, consider that 3 hots and a cot and maybe some hard questioning is a damn sight better treatment than the terrorists have been giving their captives. I mean, how many people have been tortured, blown up, shot, beheaded, and otherwise brutalized at the hands of terrorists for "crimes against Islam?" I mean, isn't that a formal charge in the eyes of a Jihadist? I guess my question is that being charged or even tried for crimes by terrorists doesn't really justify being held captive, tortured, and killed does it?

And how do we know they are even terrorists at all? Or is it okay to hold up 10 innocents if at the same there are 11 real terrorists in custody at the same time? Sounds rather wrong to me, even if the "other side" is a lot more brutal than you claim not to be.

But of course holding innocent Jamal for 5 years without charged and then just being set "free" after his neigbour told AFS that he was in bed with insurgents to get the promised reward is a exelent way to make him turn into a real terrorist with something against america.

[Daniel San]

I think no one sees a problem in keeping a person accused of terrorist acts in prison. But at the very least, that person should be given the opportunity to prove his innocence.

[Firetxmi]

I think no one sees a problem in keeping a person accused of terrorist acts in prison. But at the very least, that person should be given the opportunity to prove his innocence.

Exactly. I have absolutely no problem with keeping terrorist in prison. But, our government is not flawless and has [gasp] been known to make mistakes or be wrong on occasion. If we accidentally imprison an innocent civilian indefinitely it doesn't serve anyone, the Iraqi people, us (they will now have an easier time recruiting terrorists and have more ammo for their propaganda).

[tntkop]

Warpig - Thanks for trying to keep the debate moving. I don't think my points are necessarily weak [as you say], but I respect your opinion.

As for Durandal and Fire, you guys [or gals?] accuse me of posting condescending comments, yet Durandal drops the "f-bomb", says my posts are Bullsh-t, blah, blah, blah. Why? Because I happen to disagree with him. And if you disagree with Durandal, he turns it into a personal matter.

Factually, the information I post here are from media sources, the majority of which is driven by the 'left'. All I am doing is posting a conservative view of the same stories.

If someone is offended if I call them a lib, well, if you don't wanna be called a duck, then quit going around quacking like one. Sorry, Durandal, but the manner in which you resort to personal assaults suggests you do lean towards the 'left', after all, that's the tactic of every other liberal on every other liberal website and media forum I've seen. But if you're not, that fine. And if you're not...then enough with YOUR sarcastic, condescening and threatening tone.

Fire - the same goes for you. Sorry if you're offended by my posts. But just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm going to make it personal. And if you'll take the time to go back, you'll see that I didn't draw first blood.

I have two basic objectives when I post here.

One, to post a controversial topic for discussion. If you are offended by my topics, then WHY are you even here? This is a forum titled, "POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS AND RANTS". If you don't want to discuss politics, or hear people rant, then leave. Jeeez (sigh).

As for my "B.S" posts - there have been HUNDREDS of views on those posts and are the pages of replies are in double-digits. Maybe people DO like discussing these things... Hmmmm?

How about we talk about paternity test results on today's Maury Povich show? And that's not condescending, its just direct. Please, tell us - what do you want to talk about?

My other objective is this: In regards to politicians and political issues, I don't see two playing fields with different sets of rules.

I see one field, one set of rules.

But the liberal media either has short-term memories, or selective memories. They blame the state of the world squarely on President Bush. If the liberal media and the 'left' held themselves to the same standards of which they hold the Bush administration, then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are. I am merely attempting to illuminat the terrain on which we are currently deployed. Is that simple.

And you, Fire, you say you were "simply" asking what my source was. Sorry, but no, you really weren't. Others (Warpig) noticed your obvious tone.

I told you the story was on a liberal website. But just for you, I have since re-visited that site, however, not surprisingly, the story is no longer there.

But before you say, "that proves the story is false...", consider this:

You will not find any stories on the New York Times' website covering Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's controversial resignation over her approval of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in military construction contracts to her husband's construction companies.

Does that mean it didn't happen? Absolutely not. But the liberal media refuses to print stories like this. Maybe that's why people get so upset with people like me....because they DON'T see those stories in the media; so we gotta be making it all up, right?

The irony is, you guys get upset with me, but the validity of the stories I post have yet to be discredited....so, you shoot the messenger.

[Calanen]

I can't see a legal infraction when it comes to HOLDING these terrorists while we in a war on terror. Considering we openly tell the whole friggin world that we keep them at GITMO and allow the scrutiny of a microscope on the place should be evidence that things are on the up and up. I don't think that the lack of a legal infraction makes it right however. No, it isn't quite kosher to keep even a terrorist without some form of charge, accusation, or anything like it. But, then again, what do you charge these guys with? They are there so that they can't cause harm.



I hear what you say, but let's say you are an Iraqi guy, just an average Joe. You like the Americans. You hate Saddam, but you are walking down the road and a firefight lights up. You take cover, the jihadis do a runner. And they pick you up as one of the terrorists after its over, assuming you ditched your weapon. Wouldn't you want your day in court to say, hey guys, I work selling mobile phones at the shop just around the corner - this had nothing to do with me?

[tntkop]

Calanen -

That same scenario played out all throughout Europe in WWII. The French Freedom Fighters were subject to the same thing. As were the Belgians, Poles, Danes, etc.

The same scenario played out all throughout the Pacific in WWII. The Phillipinos were subject to the same thing. As were the Chinese, Okinawans, Thais, etc.

Surely those things are more easily sorted out with today's technologies than they were in the 1940s. We didn't have a big problem with it back then, and I don't think it's that big of a problem in Iraq today.

IMHO.

[turska]

Calanen -

That same scenario played out all throughout Europe in WWII. The French Freedom Fighters were subject to the same thing. As were the Belgians, Poles, Danes, etc.

The same scenario played out all throughout the Pacific in WWII. The Phillipinos were subject to the same thing. As were the Chinese, Okinawans, Thais, etc.

Surely those things are more easily sorted out with today's technologies than they were in the 1940s. We didn't have a big problem with it back then, and I don't think it's that big of a problem in Iraq today.

IMHO.

Erm? Did the western allies or the evil Germans rounding up the French, Belgians etc into camps? Germany was extremist dictatorship back then and those kinds of goverements really dont care about civil rights or democracy that much. :)

[turska]

What makes you think he has not been told, or does not know why he is incarcerated?

Also your POW statement, If he is a terrorist, then he is not a POW or even a "criminal". He is lucky to be incarcerated and not just shot on sight.

BTW, did you catch the pitures of the Iraqi civil servants being executed/murdered by Iraqi Terrorists? Did you even post a condemnation of that in that thread?

Edited to add:

Turksa, here is the link:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110121

Seems those who whine the most about the US, are mute on the butchery the tango commit. I greatly puzzled by that fact.

Well according the info in this thread, he is held up for "no reason". It would be okay for me, if he is labeled POW or terrorist or common criminal. If people are held up for no reason for year(s), then the coalition aint really much better than Saddam's regime.

[Calanen]

Well according the info in this thread, he is held up for "no reason". It would be okay for me, if he is labeled POW or terrorist or common criminal. If people are held up for no reason for year(s), then the coalition aint really much better than Saddam's regime.

But you never get to test the 'reason' or whether there is one or not, if you dont have a day in court. Even if its the courts martial, ive got no problem with that, or a tribunal. But you should be able to say, hey it wasn't me, or this is a mistake or whatever you want to say in your defence.

[Hollis]

He is being held for a reason. It may not be disclosed because of OPSEC at this time. There maybe ongoing OPS based on this action and information from this action.

I was In the Military and LEO, I doubt very seriously that they would go after a person and incarcerate them with out having a reason.

Whether a court or a hearings board has over sight on this I don't know. I would assume, there is some oversight in this process somewhere between being taken prisoner and "court" time.

[Dasein]

You will not find any stories on the New York Times' website covering Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's controversial resignation over her approval of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in military construction contracts to her husband's construction companies.

The initial discovery of the conflict of interest was done by left-wing independent newspapers in California, and then picked up by independent right-wing media. However, I do not recall any major news outlet, from Fox News to the New York times covering Feistein's resignation from the MILCON committee. Some might have mentioned it in passing, of course, but none were instrumental in breaking the story.

[tntkop]

People think everything that occurs in the military is subject to review by the public, similar to the Open Records Act regarding police reports, etc. But that's just not the case. Many things remain confidential for security reason.

But even with the Open Records Act, law enforcement agencies are NOT required to release everything. The public doesn't have a 'right to know', just because they are 'the public'. They're not in the loop of 'need-to-know' persons vital to the security of the investigation.

The reasons for holding that journalist do NOT have to be revealed. And just because the government doesn't reveal the evidence they have on him, or the reasons for which they are holding him, doesn't NOT mean they are holding him illegally.

[Calanen]

He is being held for a reason. It may not be disclosed because of OPSEC at this time. There maybe ongoing OPS based on this action and information from this action.


But is it a good reason? We cant know unless it gets tested by some independent body. Does the US military never make mistakes?

For every person the police arrest anywhere, the police will always have a reason to arrest them - and normally think its a very good one. Yet we know that some of those people are innocent. I don't think that the US military is going to have a better ratio of arresting innocent people, especially when they are not police at all but soldiers.

At least as far as the police goes. - would you be in favour of abolishing trials in the US, on the basis that all police arrest people for a reason, and if you were not arrested, then you would not be guilty? But if you were arrested, you must be guilty.

Would certainly save the state a lot of money, and you may consider it an entirely fair process, too many of those criminals were getting off anyway...until they arrest you or your family.

Let's say you are living in Iraq. Your family member is picked up by the US military. You know your family member really well. He is just a young businessman in the wrong place at the wrong time, hates Al Quada and wants nothing to do with the war. How are you going to convince the US military of that, when there is no trial?