Navy lawyer may do time for naming detainees

[Firetxmi]

Navy lawyer may do time for naming detainees
Jury recommends 6 months for passing Guantanamo IDs to rights group
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:56 p.m. CT May 18, 2007

NORFOLK, Va. - A military jury recommended Friday that a Navy lawyer be discharged and imprisoned for six months for sending a human rights attorney the names of 550 Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz was convicted Thursday of communicating secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees that could be used to injure the United States and three other charges of leaking information to an unauthorized person.

The jury of seven Navy officers recommended that Diaz receive his pay and benefits while incarcerated, but the sentence must be approved by Rear Adm. Rick Ruehe. The dismissal will also be reviewed by a military appellate court, the Navy said.

Diaz, who could have received up to 14 years in prison, gave emotional testimony during the sentencing hearing, apologizing for his actions.

"The prosecutors were right: I'm a meticulous man. I should have done better. It was extremely irrational for me to do what I did," Diaz said.

After the first day of his trial Monday, Diaz had told The Dallas Morning News he felt sending the list — which was inside an unmarked Valentine's Day card — was the right decision because of how the detainees were being treated.

"My oath as a commissioned officer is to the Constitution of the United States," Diaz said. "I'm not a criminal."

In early 2005, as he was concluding a six-month tour of duty as a legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Diaz sent an anonymous note to a New York civil liberties group containing the detainees' names.

The Center for Constitutional Rights earlier had won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that terrorism suspects had the right to challenge their detention. But the Pentagon was refusing to identify the men, hampering the group's effort to represent them.

"I had observed the stonewalling, the obstacles we continued to place in the way of the attorneys," Diaz told the newspaper. "I knew my time was limited. ... I had to do something."

Diaz said he now believes it was "cowardly" to release the names and other identifying information in that manner.

Diaz, 41, of Topeka, Kan., did not testify in the court-martial.


Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18747042/

[Surf City]

This guy needs the book thrown at him and have his pay stripped.

[Limeyfellow]

The guy needs a medal. Holding people in secret in a prison without any process or oversight after making them disappear in the middle of the night is wrong.

[Mailman]

A medal for what...betraying his country?

Well I guess you could be right as long as that medal weighs a couple tons!

Mailman

[Andrew Chalmers]

The convict may have done something ethical - but the jury has decided it was illegal.

Regardless... a problem with this prosecution (which might be overturned on appeal) is that the information was never designated classified... it was designated "For Official Use Only" - which is not a legal designation.

[Calanen]

A medal for what...betraying his country?

Well I guess you could be right as long as that medal weighs a couple tons!

Mailman

I think betraying his country is going too far. Maybe unwise thing to do, but maybe his conscience got the better of him. The government should not have been stonewalling about the names of people in detention, and could have released the names with the appropriate undertakings to ensure confidentiality. They were just being obstructionist and bloody minded, when they should be model litigants.

[MichaelF]

JAG does not get a free pass on the UCMJ.

[Durandal]

Craziness...

I bet if we actually held prisoners that U.S. troops took that we KNEW were bad guys, this would not be happening.

What we have though is some like 8% of the population taken by U.S. agents (CIA/military) and the rest all done by questionable means...like 10K USD rewards that are a fortune in Pakistan.

So as a result, we get a bunch of Chinese muslim workers picked up and then held ILLEGALLY for years with NO PROOF of terrorist ties. If people took the time to check out the facts on all of this more Americans, I hope, would be disgusted.

But hey, rather than give these people their lives back or a chance to stay in the U.S. we dump SOME of them (the rest are still being held even though they have been declared as no longer being terrorists...not that they ever were) in Albania.

FIVE ƒucking years.

And some of you have the balls to say what we are doing down there is right?

They guy broke the law and will pay for the crime, but in my eyes, he is a patriot that our founding fathers would approve of.

[JJC]

I still think what the military or the CIA does is good. Of course there are innocent poeple that were swept up, but we have innocent poeple in our Justice system, does it mean that we should abandon our Justice system. Nothing is flawless, what are the stats on innocent prisoners held in ghitmo?

[Andrew Chalmers]

I still think what the military or the CIA does is good. Of course there are innocent poeple that were swept up, but we have innocent poeple in our Justice system, does it mean that we should abandon our Justice system. Nothing is flawless, what are the stats on innocent prisoners held in ghitmo?

Depends how you define "innocent" - being innocent = not being guilty of a crime. If you aren't being charged with a crime - then you are innocent.

There are folks who served the Taliban without being affiliated with Al-Qaeda - should they be detained? Suppose the United States is involved in a conflict & a US social worker is arrested for aiding the enemy. That's about how "innocent" the detainees get. Although there have been a few folks detained who were essentially kidnapped by locals and turned in for $$$... and were not released for at least a year because of political concerns of the US gov.

[Durandal]

..but we have innocent poeple in our Justice system, does it mean that we should abandon our Justice system. Nothing is flawless, what are the stats on innocent prisoners held in ghitmo?

That's funny, you just compared our justice system to Gitmo.

Are there innocent people that get into the system, our justice system?

Yes, but not without EXTENSIVE attempts at trying to prevent it from happening.

IF, right now, I went to the CIA and FBI and said, look, "I don;t even want a reward, I just want to let you know that the guy known as JJC on MP.net is actually a terrorist, not an American. I know people who have seen him with KNOWN AQ agents, and even has a friend that is a hard line islamo-facist".

Going on that RELIABLE, extremely sensitive, and trustworthy info, they would arrest you. You would then have to PROVE before a tribunal that YOU, in fact did none of this, without knowing what you did or what "radical muslim" friend I was talking about. Nor would you know that is was ME accusing you.

You would have to defend yourself (guilty till proven innocent) against these charges that would be hidden from you (hey, they are top secret sources...as are the charges...very hush hush).

EVEN then, if you did prove yourself innocent, which would be unlikely since you could not call witnesses, you would subjected to low end torture (yeah, 5 years of imprisonment, cut off from the world, no real daylight, not much to read, no real news, or letters from home...absolutely cut off IS torture if you are innocent) at best, and then MAYBE released...grudgingly because you are an embarrassment of a broken system.

IF this all happened, then maybe you might think a bit differently.

We are ROBBING people of their lives and we justify it by saying we are fighting evil.

You justify it...because a RARE innocent gets caught up in our JUSTICE system where the State needs to prove to ALL in an open court, recorded, and made public, that you are indeed, before a judge and/or jury, guilty of a crime.

We fought a war of independence, in part, because we felt that as PEOPLE, be it as freemen or part of the crown we should be able to have certain rights and freedoms.

If we, as a nation think, that because we are who we are, that we are somehow above the law that we ourselves hold dear and have built the very foundation of our society on...then the terrorists have already won and they no longer represent the TRUE threat.

[Calanen]

I agree Durandal.

It is very dangerous to say, no need for proof or due process, these people are guilty. Because one day, the person accused may be you.

The founding fathers would have been outraged by dodging the constitution in the name of security.

[martinexsquaddie]

the british terrorist suspects were so dangerous they were set free without any charges being brought.
theres probably some very dangerous people at gitmo and a lot of grunts unfortunately nobody can know for sure

[JJC]

If these people were American citizens and the U.S. Gov would be taking this legal approach of slow due process then I would protest, but we are talking about foreign particularly from Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. (The Taliban regime would not respect your rights if it were you as an American in their hands....) Most of these people were not swept up because some Army general was ordered by the Gov to fill up Ghitmo to make it look like America is fighting a war on terror. Majority of these detainees are known AQ members. There is a reason why our Gov doesn't want them in a civilian courts and it makes scence.....
Most of what we hear about Ghitmo comes from the news and some will agree that the news media has treated the story of Ghitmo as if it's a Gulag.

Myth #3: Detainees have no rights. Every detainee at Guantanamo has had his detention status reviewed by a formal board. Of the 400 or so detainees still there, about 120 have been determined to eligible to be released to their home country or other country. They are being sent home as soon as countries agree to accept them and not torture them. Three hundred and fifteen have already been released from Guantanamo, including five in the month I visited. The others are given an annual review board to determine if detention is still warranted. In addition, the detainees have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. federal civilian courts.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed102506b.cfm

[Durandal]

If these people were American citizens and the U.S. Gov would be taking this legal approach of slow due process then I would protest

We've done it to at least three U.S. citizens, probably more. So lets see the protest.

That said...


The Taliban regime would not respect your rights if it were you as an American in their hands...

Ah, that argument. Lets treat people from other countries with crappy legal systems poorly because their government would treat us like crap.

Pathetic and disgusting.


Majority of these detainees are known AQ members. There is a reason why our Gov doesn't want them in a civilian courts and it makes scence.....


Prove it. Show me the documentation on these folks that PROVES a majority of these folks are AQ.

Bottom line is, we preach democracy, transparency, and civil liberties and in reality we are casually toss all that aside when it suits the leadership.

And we worry about terrorists.

[Jobu]

As a civilian I don't want military personnel deciding which rules they want to follow or not in situations like this. It's not like he was given an unlawful order. He just decided himself to give away secret information.

Throw the book at him.

[Jobu]

Bottom line is, we preach democracy, transparency, and civil liberties and in reality we are casually toss all that aside when it suits the leadership.

And we worry about terrorists.


In times of war it is sometimes necessary to temporarily suspend certain liberties in order to actually win the war. There's nothing "casual" about it the way you try to make it sound. We gave up a lot more liberties to win other wars, why should this one be any different?

I do worry about terrorists and I also worry about letting them go on some legal technicality when we believe they are a threat to this country. It's a war, not the OJ Simpson trial.

[Andrew Chalmers]

In times of war it is sometimes necessary to temporarily suspend certain liberties in order to actually win the war. There's nothing "casual" about it the way you try to make it sound. We gave up a lot more liberties to win other wars, why should this one be any different?

I do worry about terrorists and I also worry about letting them go on some legal technicality when we believe they are a threat to this country. It's a war, not the OJ Simpson trial.

"Sometimes necessary" seems to be assumed - where is the necessity in detainee individuals, keeping them away from independent judicial oversight & legal due process? I am not a terrorist sympathizer, if a suspected terrorist is caught & has committed a crime, try him, sentence him and punish them. If it is the death penalty that is sentenced - give them death. But why "hide" something that should be perfectly legitimate?

What legal technicality are you referring to? The detainees, regardless of their alleged behavior are innocent until proven guilty (remember we can't assume they are terrorists unless we have reason to believe they are, which requires evidence). It is absurd for a government agency with the some much more resources than the detained individual to say "we won't try you under our own existing legal structure because we're afraid we don't have enough evidence to convict, but we won't release you either because we have evidence to reasonably believe you are a threat."

If our legal system can't handle it? Let's fix it - keeping it away from a legal system is akin to saying our legal system is incapable for dealing with terrorism, but we won't do anything about it & will instead not use it altogether.

We've been capable of charging and sentencing terrorists before - we're capable of doing it now. Why leave 200 some folks in legal limbo, some of which for half a decade? Intelligence gathered from low-level militants is only useful if it is time sensitive - organizations evolve over time & the personnel involved changes. The argument that a detainee is a continued threat is a legitimate concern - but that doesn't provide an argument of why they shouldn't be given judicial proceedings.

It is easy to say that we've sacrificed civil liberties when the civil liberty being scarified is not ours (i.e. Japanese Americans interned in WWII). But suppose you were in a university and you had a dorm room buddy who happens to be on an international student visa, and some malicious idiot with creditability makes false accusations against this student & the student is detained? Right now - the executive branch that detains the individuals is essentially also making the "judicial" review - declaring which individuals are "unlawful enemy combatants" and which are not. Individuals classified as enemy combatants have been denied habeas corpus claims under the Military Commissions Act 2006 (which was pushed through before elections as a way to show "tough on terrorism").

The provision that does this reads:
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

So - under this framework, suppose the student in the hypothetical has been detained and moved to a military detention facility (say a brig in SC or Guantanamo Bay) - what is the student to do?

[Hollis]

Andrew, there are plenty of legal motions and arguments filed. I basically agree, but there is a lot not being said too.

If one believe the US is completely insensitive and acts moronish, than holding innocent people would be the case.

As mentioned earlier some have been released to their respective countries for various reason. There are reasons some were released and the rest or being held, unless your directly involved and have sufficient security clearance you will never know.

There are valid reasons for holding the remainder. Unless you want to assume the above.

One of the Problem with OPSEC, "one can not say one way or the other", that allows for propagandist to "weave" their web of deceit either to get information they don't have or to add to the anti-US propaganda.

Keep in mind anything said, will actually say something that may aid the terrorists. Therefore nothing is said.


Also google all the oversight/legal motions/legal arguments filed on the behalf of those incarcerated.


Edited to add, even in the best of times the legal system is not 100%, as I mentioned earlier, I could get arrested to day, thrown in jail till a trial.......... and have not done anything illegal. it is highly unlikely, but has happened to people. Mistakes and the best of human intentions are linked to gether.

[Calanen]

Edited to add, even in the best of times the legal system is not 100%, as I mentioned earlier, I could get arrested to day, thrown in jail till a trial.......... and have not done anything illegal. it is highly unlikely, but has happened to people. Mistakes and the best of human intentions are linked to gether.


You still need a reasonable process. The process they have currently is not reasonable, whatever they have done. They need to be brought to trial if they have committed offences quickly, afforded representation and not coerced through the use of water boarding into incriminating themselves. They should be able to confront their accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and receive transcripts and videos of interviews. Those are the minimum standards expected of a proper trial, something that the USA was founded upon as core principles of natural justice.

[JJC]

They should be able to confront their accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and receive transcripts and videos of interviews. Those are the minimum standards expected of a proper trial, something that the USA was founded upon as core principles of natural justice.

Are you serious about this? Pretend it is you who is that witness can you guess what will happen to you if you are called to testify against Haled Shaik Mohammed because he demands to see his accuser in court? Do you know that there have been situations where transcripts were used by these defendants and the info that they got was send to AQ cells around the world and it has hurt the way intell agencies were tracking AQ and other Jihadis.
Lynne Stewart was the AQ lawyer who was disbared for sharing transcripts and giving info to her clients who then put that info into good use. These are the reasons why dangerous terrorists should not be put under American civil court system where they will get out on stupid technicalities or cases dragged for decades just so their ACLU lawyers fill their pockets.

[Calanen]

Are you serious about this? .

Yeah I am actually. If you have not been involved in a trial that has been closed for reasons of national security or involved classified documents and the way in which they are handled, you probably are not really in a position to sensibly comment.

If you think that the prisoner gets a xerox and can Fedex important documents around the world, think again. Documents need only be disclosed to counsel with undertakings that they not be disclosed to clients, or not leave a certain room, or not be copied.

The US government and the Australian government can try members of the mafia and other organised crime figures and protect those witnesses adequately. Your arguments about the protection of witnesses being the reason for dispensing with the ability to have a fair trial are misconceived.

[Durandal]

In times of war it is sometimes necessary to temporarily suspend certain liberties in order to actually win the war. There's nothing "casual" about it the way you try to make it sound. We gave up a lot more liberties to win other wars, why should this one be any different?

I do worry about terrorists and I also worry about letting them go on some legal technicality when we believe they are a threat to this country. It's a war, not the OJ Simpson trial.

It must be tough being big government's bitch.

[Hollis]

You still need a reasonable process. The process they have currently is not reasonable, whatever they have done. They need to be brought to trial if they have committed offences quickly, afforded representation and not coerced through the use of water boarding into incriminating themselves. They should be able to confront their accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and receive transcripts and videos of interviews. Those are the minimum standards expected of a proper trial, something that the USA was founded upon as core principles of natural justice.


Well, so far there has been plenty of legal challenges. Also this is not a criminal proceeding, enemy combatant is the term. Also some of this is new uncharted area of law.

If you feel you can adequately present a convincing legal argument............ go for it. So far no one has. Out side of the court, this is all babble/opinion/political axe to grind/???

Trial by internet is no different that what you are accusing the US government of doing.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Are you serious about this? Pretend it is you who is that witness can you guess what will happen to you if you are called to testify against Haled Shaik Mohammed because he demands to see his accuser in court? Do you know that there have been situations where transcripts were used by these defendants and the info that they got was send to AQ cells around the world and it has hurt the way intell agencies were tracking AQ and other Jihadis.
Lynne Stewart was the AQ lawyer who was disbared for sharing transcripts and giving info to her clients who then put that info into good use. These are the reasons why dangerous terrorists should not be put under American civil court system where they will get out on stupid technicalities or cases dragged for decades just so their ACLU lawyers fill their pockets.

Wow... your ideas if taken to be true, would support the indefinite detention of what? 40% of Irish-American males along the East Coast of United States during the 1980s & early 1990s because they either conspired, attempted or provided material assistance to a terrorist organization.

Lynne Stewart is quite an extreme case - although she was not a "AQ lawyer" disbarred for sharing transcripts. Stewart was convicted of passing information on behalf of convicted terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman - essentially serving as a communication courier to his terrorist organization. Stewart had previous agreed to certain conditions including not to "use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman."

Omar Abdel-Rahman is a convicted terrorist. Suspects in Guantanamo are not yet convicted. Pentagon officials are intending to charge 80 of the approximately 385 detainees, transfer/release 70~80 others; while the others are basically in legal limbo).

If you have a personal issue against courts & judicial proceedings... let us know which "stupid technicalities" you are referring to. If you are under the impression that ACLU lawyers are being paid worth their time by their clients in Guantanamo or the US government, you are dead wrong. Many attorneys representing the detainees before the military commissions are being represented by private attorneys pro bono... and if there's any organization proportionally representing more detainees, it is probably the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) not the ACLU. I don't agree with most issues the ACLU stands on - but I certainly don't view the organization as some enemy of the state or state security. There needs to be a balance between security and liberty of society - neither extreme is satisfactory IMO and the debate is necessary.

[Hollis]

I don't agree with most issues the ACLU stands on - but I certainly don't view the organization as some enemy of the state or state security. There needs to be a balance between security and liberty of society - neither extreme is satisfactory IMO and the debate is necessary.


Well said.

[Calanen]

Well, so far there has been plenty of legal challenges. Also this is not a criminal proceeding, enemy combatant is the term. Also some of this is new uncharted area of law.

If you feel you can adequately present a convincing legal argument............ go for it. So far no one has. Out side of the court, this is all babble/opinion/political axe to grind/???

Trial by internet is no different that what you are accusing the US government of doing.

I don't think that I have been trying anyone over the internet. I am saying that this system is flawed. Not national security, not terrorism, not protection of witnesses can ever justify detaining a person for 5 years without bringing them to trial.

Its not an unchartered area of law.

The US Military Commission has been overturned once by the Supreme Court after much delay and obfuscation by the US Federal government.

It remains a criminal proceeding, or, they are POWs. They cannot be neither.

Whatever they have done or not done, I have no view about. But they like everyone else deserve their day in court and promptly.

[Hollis]

I don't think that I have been trying anyone over the internet. I am saying that this system is flawed. Not national security, not terrorism, not protection of witnesses can ever justify detaining a person for 5 years without bringing them to trial.

Its not an unchartered area of law.

The US Military Commission has been overturned once by the Supreme Court after much delay and obfuscation by the US Federal government.

It remains a criminal proceeding, or, they are POWs. They cannot be neither.

Whatever they have done or not done, I have no view about. But they like everyone else deserve their day in court and promptly.


They are not POW's because they are terrorists, They are exempt from the treartment as Military prisoners of war.

My understanding in the past it is exceptable to have had them shot on sight for being terrorists. Much like the werewolves in Germany after WWII.

Also my understanding they are not criminals, because the US does not have legal jurisdiction in A-Stan.

I don't know all the particulars but all of this has already been argued.

[Calanen]

They are not POW's because they are terrorists.

My understanding in the past it is exceptable to have had them shot on sight for being terrorists. Much like the werewolves in Germany after WWII.

Also my understanding they are not criminals, because the US does not have legal jurisdiction in A-Stan.

I don't know all the particulars but all of this has already been argued.

And by what process were they determined to be terrorists, could they say anything in their defence, have counsel. It cannot be that you dispense with all due process just by labelling someone as a terrorist.

The arguments about this process are winding their way up the Courts, and the US government delays at every step. They are by no means yet finished. Part of what this navy lawyer did was provide the list of detainees, so that legal action could be brought for the detainees. If you are labelled a terrorist, are incommunicado - how do you get before a court or get counsel when none are allowed to see you.

I think you are referring to the provisions on spies under the Geneva Convention. But even they get a trial under the Geneva Convention, and yes they can be shot if convicted. But they should have a trial first, and a speedy one.

As for what jurisdiction the US had, they can only have jurisdiction provided to them as a signatory under the Geneva Convention. If the US government says the Geneva Convention does not apply to these people and they are not POWs, then they have an entitlement to an Article 4 hearing to determine that. There is not proper oversight of the process i the government can unilaterally determine that any person it says is a terrorist, and then keep them locked up for as long as they want.

[Andrew Chalmers]

They are not POW's because they are terrorists, They are exempt from the treartment as Military prisoners of war.

My understanding in the past it is exceptable to have had them shot on sight for being terrorists. Much like the werewolves in Germany after WWII.

Also my understanding they are not criminals, because the US does not have legal jurisdiction in A-Stan.

I don't know all the particulars but all of this has already been argued.

The 3rd & 4th Geneva Conventions have altered the rules governing the status of POWs... but haven't really been "argued" before a court in the federal system because the current Supreme Court essentially ruled that there apparently detainees cannot enforce treaties that the US has ratified. Since the detainees (there is no designation of "terrorist" in either of the Geneva conventions) aren't really in a position to get their states to press enforcement (with maybe the exception of China, UK and Australian detainees) - they have no way to enforce rights under Geneva (even if they had rights).

Under Article 5 of Geneva 3 - detainees are presumed to be POW until a competent tribunal has deemed to be a "unlawful" aka "non-privileged combatant."

Even without protected status Geneva 4 says that party states are to treat the "combatants who are hors de combat due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) 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."Most creditable courts and legal academics generally hold the view that there are two categories of persons - neither of which is outside the scope of the law. Combatants are either privileged or not privileged & then there are noncombatants. Privilege status only means that a combatant cannot be charged for something like "murder" after shooting an enemy soldier pursuant to combat. Being non-privileged combatants doesn't mean the combatant has no humanitarian rights or should have access to a judicial system - but rather that they have no judicial immunity from prosecution.

Certain members of the Taliban can arguably be considered privileged combatants - while I doubt anyone would seriously argue that Al Qaeda members are. But the odd thing that has happened in recent years is... certain groups in government (there's a whole lot of dissent in the DOJ, State, DOD with existing policy) somehow feel that the court system should not be trusted with handling the cases & thus threw away the main tool we have against the terrorists (as they are not immune from prosecution).

In any case - there's no way SCOTUS can address these right now & unlikely to reach SCOTUS before 2008. SCOTUS' previous striking down of MCA 06's predecessor only meant that Congress passed MCA 06 & no challenge has reached SCOTUS yet (SCOTUS custom requires a certain "ripeness")...

To me - the dispositive issue right now under the US interpretation is really what constitutes a competent "tribunal" - the last Congress basically legislated in MCA 06 that the Executive was a competent tribunal to determine status. But that has little to do with law & more to do with politics. I for one am quite concerned at the implications of US & ally "detainees" in future conflicts - because we established quite a strong precedent for removing POW status... and in matters such as international law & affairs - comity and reciprocity does make a difference. Some have said that terrorists don't respect the laws anyway - which is true - but terrorists are people who are citizens of respective states & not individuals separated from connections with others. Given the high rate of recidivism of our domestic criminals after their release from prison - I often wonder why "terrorists" are partitioned into a sphere of there own when we have delinquents who are sent through the court system (which I presume most says works fairly well), come out & kill more people than most "terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay ever have or will.

For example - the NSTSA estimates that drunk drivers inflicted over 500,000 causalities in the United States in 2003. Using the arguments used to support non-judicial detention of terrorists, why what's to stop us from instituting a "Drunk Drivers" status that is determinable by local executives (Mayors, City Council, Sheriffs) & give law enforcement the authority to indefinitely detain these individuals (who statistically have a higher chance of hurting/killing more people than terrorists) until they have been deemed to be not a threat? The only difference seems to be that "terrorists" are seen to be foreigners of Islamic orientation. But suppose we turn the policies and the legal precedents against others we're not so alien to? Say... Irish-Americans for differing levels of support for the IRA? Albanian-Americans & Croat-Americans (the latter group disproportionately encouraged Bosnian Croats to stir up ethno-nationalism & dressed in SS uniforms), etc?

[Hollis]

My understanding is the classification, Geneva convention is for POW, Captured Military Soldiers. They are defined. The terrorist do not meet that Definition.

The terrorist do NOT fall under the Geneva Convention, it is a MOOT POINT.

Read:


Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) and members of other volunteer corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_volunteer), including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I));
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detaining_Power).
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation), who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt as to whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

[Calanen]

My understanding is the classification, Geneva convention is for POW, Captured Military Soldiers. They are defined. The terrorist do not meet that Definition.

Which is very convenient, because this means the government can call anyone it wants a terrorist, and never have it challenged, and then say, there are no terrorists in the Geneva Convention. These are terrorists. Why? Because we said so.

If someone wants to say, 'I am not a terrorist.' - how exactly would they go about doing that? Is it even possible that anyone labelled a terrorist, may not be? If there is no system to check whether the label of terrorist was accurately given, does that not lead to the likelihood of its abuse?

[Durandal]

My understanding is the classification, Geneva convention is for POW, Captured Military Soldiers. They are defined. The terrorist do not meet that Definition.

Hollis...

What about innocent civilians?

They are not soldiers nor are the terrorists.

What rights do they have?

You know, the people we claim to be protecting and helping?

I am not slamming you, but you have basically let a government that we know to be corrupt, with an executive Branch that has been its strongest since Lincoln, define what terrorism is.


The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting details about potential targets on the internet.

Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI
Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
February 12, 2002
As an example of a possible path that this might go...

Now I have no problem with prosecuting a person because the broke a law. I do have a problem with treating them as if they were NOT citizens of this nation or human beings.

Its sort of like "hate crimes". They are either guilty of a crime (say murder or theft) or they are not. Hate crime is baggage, just like "terrorists" is in many cases.

Some may look at this as an apple to oranges comparison.

I don't.

In this rather rabid attempt we have netted a WHOLE lot of innocent people because an ENEMY of our nation sold them to us and it takes them 3 years of TORTURE to be released.

As an American, this turns my stomach.

We are sooo close to crossing lines in our nation that it worries me far more than terrorism.

[Calanen]

ELF burnt down the apartment complex behind mine, the day I finished the bar exam. So I'd been awake for 3 days, and they made it 4. The fire was so hot, the ambient heat melted the glass in the windows in my complex.

But yeah, even these morons get a fair trial. If they ever catch them.

[Andrew Chalmers]

My understanding is the classification, Geneva convention is for POW, Captured Military Soldiers. They are defined. The terrorist do not meet that Definition.

That isn't how it works - Geneva Three establishes standards POW; but there is still Geneva Four. If one doesn't qualify as a privileged combatant (POW status) under Article 5 Geneva III - then they fall under Geneva IV.

Which says that such persons "shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."


This point isn't moot - neither is has been address by Supreme Court. It is just that we've decided to basically breach our own obligations under a convention we've ratified. Read my earlier post - there's no such thing as a "terrorists" designation and persons are basically civilian, privileged combatants or non-privileged combatants (each category retain certain rights under Geneva 3 and 4).

[Hollis]

Hollis...

What about innocent civilians?

They are not soldiers nor are the terrorists.

What rights do they have?

.


Durandel, I believe the problem is right there. It is a conundrum between national security and individual rights.

I don't believe the government is all evil. There is Corruption, yes.

I know the solution is not us on this forum acting as over sight for Gitmo detainees.

There is just the practical aspect of all of this, Why would the Government go through all of this trouble, expense and feed anti-US propaganda?

Americans are not being locked up, there are no internment camps in the US, The media is just as vocal as ever, all the indicators of Political or Social repression being formated by the Government is not there.

They have opening released detainees which adds transparency of Gitmo and can fuel anti-US propaganda. Gitmo is not a Secret operation. Regular Marines are there.

I can see a cause for concern, if the population of Gitmo was getting bigger, rather than smaller.

I do trust certain aspects of our government. Maybe I know too many people who are employed by it. I don't think any enterprise run by humans can avoid some degree of corruption.

I am done with this thread, to many are showing a US is Evil Bias. Gitmo does not prove anything. It just fills one's bias as they choose.

To say it is convenient, means to imply, the US is all Evil.

[Mastermind]

Hollis is right on with this issue. You can nit-pick the GC, the US Constituion, and slam the present Administration all you want ...I am pissed also at the Bush Administration....but, try as I might, I can not find one single point of craven corruption so boldly stated here. So far, no one I have asked has been able to show where "Bush Lied" and where the blatant corruption is. There has been lots of propaganda to support that accusastion...but, I can assure you, as much as Bush is positively hated, if there was proof, the Demonrats would splatter it all over their impeachment bills for Bush and Cheney. Wanna-be-President Pelosi would never let the "lies" and "corruption" slide if she had even the most remote chance of becoming President.

It still comes down to this....these people were picked up on a battlefield, they were killing and attempting to kill coalition forces and they were "detained" accordingly. They were not uniformed, patched soldiers..they were participants of a mob....partisans. Although I happen to believe the Taliban operated and are operating that way as a matter of routine, it is too bad for the detainees their country chose to be rogues and not follow the GC rules. Thus, we have this so-called mess of a detainee situation.

Well, the world has changed dramatically sine 1789....It would be interesting to see what the Founding Fathers did with the "Muslim pirates" they fought while the rest of the world stammered and faltered over that issue. The fact is, we should never treat these crumb-bums as real soldiers. Watching how they mutilate bodies, torture prisoners, cut off heads, stone young girls to death without a trial, and fly plane loads of innocent people into buildings filled with innocent people ...this is a completely different breed of cat we are trying to deal with. We, of course, are not going to be successful...Why? Becasue we are CIVILIZED! This very debate on the issue proves that. And we will never be able to handle barbarian like these until we get down right barbaric back. We despised Sadam for his barbarity....but, has anyone noticed, he seemed to be keeping these monsters at bay.

Yes, I hate it that we have to stoop to the level we are at Gitmo...and eventually, we will do the wrong thing and let those people go...where, I don't know...many of the ones we have let go were later found killing coalition forces again in A-stan. The ones that have been slated for release have not been permitted to go back home because their own countyrmen know what ba$tards they are.

Well, we'll get them lawyers and trials and such...and then the circuses, like the Padilla trial, will go on and on and on...adinfinitum. Then, we will feel all good about ourselves again. Until the next plane load of innocent people get blasted to bits again...then we can do it all over...as seems to be our silly habit. At least until someone finally grows a set and deals with these mad dogs as mad dogs must be dealt with. It won't look or feel good....but it will eventually just have to be done.

That's just my "feelings" on the matter.