…described the decision by the Supreme Court to allow Guantánamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in US courts as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”.
The Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.
He criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. His remarks represented a hardening of his position from his more moderate initial response to the ruling on Thursday, signalling a strategic decision by the McCain campaign to make it an election issue.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban hailed the decision.
Fred Thompson gets my nod for quote of the day,
In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”
Or How to Lose Wars, For Democrats.
Seems pretty obvious to me that some comments are from those who never had a bullet whiz past their head. Battle is confusing, scary and not in the least heroic. A 15 year old on the battle field? Sorry, in my rifle aim a casualty. A combat soldier does not have time to consider age, circumstances or parental authority when deciding to pull the trigger. A baby with a grenade is just as lethal as a teen with a rifle or an adult with an RPG. I agree with the person who said that fewer prisoners will be taken, and more U S soldiers will die.
I hope that not many U S civilians will as well.
Terry at 10:40 PM
they should have just shot the b*st*rd on the battlefield, instead of saving his worthless a*s
penny…that remark re Churchill is wrong.
you have your facts wrong…..it was uncle joe who suggested doing that….churchill left the table in disgust(“i can understand killing in hot blood’ but NEVER in cold blood.”)…uncle joe had to literally go to Churchill’s room to confess he’d only been ‘joking’ before Churchill would return to the meeting.
Lookout
If you are using Band Of Brothers as part of your stance than how dare you ask me to open my eyes and mind.
neo
Yeah the Simpson trial is a perfect example of a military trial…gimme a break
If they are guilty then lets put in em in court find em guilty and hang em high. If we are hesitant in doing that I have to question our proof.
Question
If there are 4 guys in a cell and 3 are guilty and one is innocent are you comfortable with that?
I am not it goes against everything I believe our society is based on.
Dave
if you read what I said I agree if you catch them on a battlefield he is guilty.I am ok on that.
But when a person is thrown into a back of a truck dropped off at a base and claimed a terrorist and the droppie is given a cash reward I am not comfortable with that.
this person deserves a trial.
john, I stand corrected, Churchill did change his mind on the trials. But, as this thoughtful article points out he may not have felt the same way today:
Applying Churchill’s thought and experience when considering the fate of the Taliban and al Qaeda may require us to ask: How can we positively affect opinion in the greater Islamic world? This does not mean renouncing violence, for as the World Wars showed, violence is sometimes necessary. But when violence ends we may need to demonstrate we are actually committed to the rule of law and not to vigilante justice. The American leadership seems to have the same reservation about public trials that Roosevelt did in the 1940s. Such trials can be made into a mockery, and a recruiting tool, by determined suspects.
The Nazis who were put on trial acted completely beaten, as indeed they were, so the Nuremberg Trials helped solidify both the outcome of the war and the positive rebuilding effort in Germany and elsewhere. Churchill can teach us to be impressed at that exercise; but also not to assume that such good fortune will always prevail, nor that the same procedure will always be wise.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=930
We aren’t dealing with Nazis this time. Keep in mind that Hitler separated the SS from his regular military, making it easier to identify those who committed “crimes against humanity”.
As the last paragraph suggests Churchill would likely have dealt differently with today’s civilian targeting jihadi scum.
R o C – How dare I mention Band of Brothers to you? I checked: I used it to make comments about the nature of war, not to make a comment about you. I don’t know very much about you. Perhaps you’d have the courtesy to fill me in re my apparent bad manners.
If you’re a veteran, I salute you and thank you.
However, if you are, I’m surprised that you would be so willing to forfeit the West’s hard won freedoms by according dirty trick, outside the Geneva Convention combatants the full legal rights of the citizens they wish to destroy. (These rights aren’t just extended to the truck drop-offs you mention, but to all the inhabitants of Gitmo.) This decision reminds me of The Young Offenders’ Act, where the initiative to protect the rights of the accused takes up far more public resources than those expended on seeking justice for their victims: what mushy, soft-headed lunacy.
BTW, I’ve worked, as a teacher, with a large number of bullies (and, with soft policy, the number of bullies is growing): teachers are fair game these days. I’m pretty sure that some of my students will end up being coddled by the justice system. These guys aren’t grown up yet, but they sure know how to wreak havoc. I’m a tough love teacher: these guys respond much better to that approach than the push-over kind, of which they’re masters at taking full advantage.
I believe that this court decision will bring out all the lawyers, who, at great taxpayer expense, will try to get the most hardened Taliban fighters amnesty. Believe me, the most vicious combatants and their lawyers will abuse the system: that’s how these people operate. What an incredible waste of American resources—material and moral. This decision is way out of proportion, e.g., to possibly protect the rights of a truck drop-off, whose guilt is unclear, Boumediene v Bush is like using an atomic bomb to kill a flea: the damage done is far greater than the possible good.
As I’ve said many times before, “Unless you haven’t noticed, we don’t even have one [a democracy with due process] here in Canada anymore. E.g., If you’re so concerned about due process—a good thing to be concerned about—what’s your opinion about what’s happenING to the Rev. Stephen Boissoin? Here. In Canada. I’m not making this up. I guess you’re altogether disgusted at how he [and other law abiding Christians are] being treated. Please let us know.”
On this Father’s Day, I salute my two grandfathers, my father-in-law, and my dad, veterans all. Thank God none of them is still alive to see the wreck the Nanny State has made of courage and freedom. That’s what they fought for. That sure isn’t what we have now. And, IMO, those who think extending more and more rights to the nastiest thugs amongst us, which puts the rest of us at grave risk, are part of the problem.
To the few who assert that the prisoners held in Guantanamo are there, not because of any actual evidence of their participation in terrorist acts buy only on the unverified word of a bounty hunter – would you provide proof of this?
Would you also provide proof that they haven’t been provided with detainee rights – which are outlined in the 2005 Detainee Act?
Again, people who are engaged in terrorism, which is as a non-state authorized combatant, are not covered by the Geneva Conventions as a legal combatant, ie, a military soldier. They aren’t authorized to carry out their actions of destruction by a state. But by an ideology which they and their group hold. That’s criminal behaviour. They aren’t US citizens, therfore, they aren’t entitled to the rule of law within US civilian courts. They are combatants outside a national identity and rule of law. That’s why the Detainee Law was passed by Congress in 2005. It covers their rights and provides due process for non-citizens. In a military court. Not a civilian court. They aren’t US citizens.
Brava, ET!
Another consideration re those who support this court decision: it aids and abets the enemy. Jihadis–like all other bullies–see appeasement as weakness. Rhetorical question: why do we keep caving?
And, as noted on O’Reilly’s show, the result of this decision is that all current Guan-detainees will immediately file to be heard in a US civilian court. Which state, by the way?
And is a civilian court capable of dealing with terrorist actions carried out outside of US territory yet against US citizens who are engaged in a military operation?
The DT Act (Detainee Treatment Act), passed by Congress in 2005 already outlines due process with regard to these detainees – who are not citizens of the US, nor are they POWs – but who engage in violent actions designed to kill US citizens/military.
What most, if not all, of the naysayers on this thread ignore is that there is already a due process for these detainees. The naysayers seem to think both that there is no due process whatsoever and that all detainees are innocent victims of unneighbourly vendettas who lie to collect a bounty.
I’d like some proof that such a specious assertion actually leads to both an arrest and a detention for longer than five minutes and, of course, that payment of money.
The question then becomes, why is a process dealing with their detention being handed over to a civilian court that is capable only of dealing with US citizens who violate US criminal law on US territory?
We are dealing with aliens, i.e., not US citizens. Who violate the Geneva Conventions of War. Who attack our military during a war campaign against Islamic fascism. And not on US territory.
Since when does a civilian court move into military affairs?
Since when does a US court move into decisions about non-US citizens?
Since when does a US court move into decisions dealing with criminal actions carried out by non-US citizens in non-US territory?
And why?
How is this same civilian court going to determine, as Scalia points out, ‘who is or is not an enemy combatant in a foreign theatre of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection’?
What will be the result? Scalia warns of an emboldened terrorism both in foreign lands and in the US. After all, if they are going to be tried as US citizens – why not? I’d bet also that the military will move into more ‘take no prisoners’ attitude as wel. Why not?
If you guys are reading what I am saying I agree with the whole enemy combatant roll. If the guy was caught fighting our troops it is a no brainer guilty charge.
But neither me or any of you guys can be sure that the guy who was finger pointed as Taliban is guilty. The only system we can all agree on is the one our forfathers went to war to protect and that is a trial.
I did comment on the Rev’s plight at the link Lookout. I agree it is crap. He has the right to say what he wants regardless if I agree with his message.
This is the same feeling I have regarding the Taliban I hate what they stand for. I stand for justice and those c***suckers are not going to take that away from me. Not to live by our code of conduct gives them a small victory.
Our way of life is better than theirs and we need to prove it to every person in the world who doesn’t believe it and that sometimes can take sacrifices.
I’ll say it again, the Guanto-terrorists should be careful what they wish for. If they file to have their case heard in civilian court, then all of their activities amounts to at least attempted murder, which will get them life in prison.
As POWs (legal combatants), the least murderous of them might eventually, in say 10 years, get a chance for freedom, as we eventually (hopefully) prevail in our war against them.
But shamrock – they can’t be defined as POWs; they aren’t members of any nation’s military.
Equally, how can they be tried in civilian court when they aren’t citizens?
That’s why they are being tried in military court.
RoC – proof in a military court is required; it isn’t as empty of the requirement for proof as you suggest. You seem to be suggesting that the military lacks due process. But Congress passed a specific set of processes for the rights of detainees. It’s called the DN Act, 2005. Check it out.
However, a military action IS different from a civilian attack and uses different standards of proof.
What do you mean by ‘finger-pointed’? I’ve already suggested that the US military is not going to pick up and charge each and every victim of someone’s personal animosity to his neighbour..and someone who just wants to pick up the ‘bounty reward’. They require proof.
The problem is, how does a civilian court treat a non-US citizen carrying out actions which are not ratified by his being a member of a national military (ie, he isn’t a POW)..carried out against the US military in a foreign territory?
The US criminal law in a civil court has no such procedures. It will have to throw out all the cases – and everyone is free.
Your previous post had some good thoughts ET thanks I enjoyed reading it.
I am certainly not legal trained espcially Military trials but couldnt there be a closed door trial with an assigned military lawyer to the defendant.
I agree with some posters I certainly wouldn’t want some gong show trial that a public trial could become.
“What do you mean by ‘finger-pointed’? I’ve already suggested that the US military is not going to pick up and charge each and every victim of someone’s personal animosity to his neighbour..and someone who just wants to pick up the ‘bounty reward’. They require proof.”
This is my concern. You are putting a lot of faith in the system that they have now. I dont know for sure that it is working correctly and I am not comfortable with that leap of faith.
Is there somebody in the prison system saying “ok that guy we locked up in cell 31B is there proof.”
Here’s a basic description of the DT (Detainee Treatment) Act. McCain developed it. Below is from Wikipedia:
“The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay; requires military interrogations to be performed according to the U.S. Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations; and strips federal courts of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners in Guantanamo, or other claims asserted by Guantanamo detainees against the U.S. government, as well as limiting appellate review of decisions of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Military Commissions.[1] On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled 5-4 that the McCain Amendment and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally limited detainee’s access to judicial review and that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in conventional civilian courts”
The problem is, these detainees are not US citizens, so, how can they have the right to access US civilian courts? They aren’t US citizens, so therefore, they have no US constitutional rights.
They aren’t POWs, so, they have no Geneva Convention Rights. They are civilians, not under the orders of any national govt, but operating by themselves, in isolate or coordinated groups, according to a militant fascist ideology. Those who attack civilians on US soil can be dealt with in US courts – and have been.
But, those who attack the US military on foreign soil, are in a different category. In many cases, they aren’t even citizens of that foreign soil country; they are militant mercenaries. How do you deal with them? That’s what the Detainee Treatment Act was all about.
So, how could these five judges conclude that a US civilian court should deal with them? Remember, they aren’t US citizens. They aren’t protected by the US constitution. They operated on foreign, not US soil. They attacked US military. So, given these three factors, how can it be concluded, as this recent SC decision did, that their ‘constitutional rights’ have been violated and that they should be tried in US civilian courts?
RoC – yes, I’m putting faith in the system, but a reasoned and logical faith.
That is, I don’t accept that an administration could and would give out bounty rewards to each and every allegation of ‘he’s a terrorist’. If we just consider the financial implications, if there were no checks/balances, no burden of proof, then, heck, that would be a great way for each and all in Iraq to get rich. Therefore, it can’t operate in such a sloppy manner.
The DT Act requires that the military has to provide an annual review to determine the need to continue to detain an alien who is a detainee ; and so on. It provides for responses to appeals and so on. I suggest you read the actual act. The point is, the detainees are considered ‘enemy combatants’ not civilians of the US nor any other nation. They are treated as such by a military court.
This most recent SC decisions essentially removes the designation of ‘enemy combatant’ and moves them into a ‘criminal civilian’. But although, on the surface, this is exactly what they are, the actuality is that they were acting in a military combatitive role against the US military.
Again, if the individual commits their acts on US soil, against civilians (9-11) then they can be tried in US civilian courts. But, this is a different situation. These individuals were setting themselves up in a military confrontation against the US military. They aren’t members of any nation’s military; they are civilians, but in many cases, not even of the nation in which the attack took place.
So, moving them into a civilian US court doesn’t make any sense.
The DT Act specicially says:4.f
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer any constitutional right on an alien detained as an enemy combatant outside the United States.”
This most recent SC decision, which is hardly a majority decision, with 5 in favour and 4, including the Chief Justice, against – rejects this clause and effectively gives these enemy combatants the rights of a US citizen.
What’s next? Will they then be released from Guantanamo and immediately apply for US residency as ‘refugees’ – claiming that their stay in Guantanamo rendered them unsuitable for return to their native Iraq, Iran, SA, Pakistan or wherever? Of course, ahem, they will all have abandoned their former commitment to violent jihad against the US….
“…the result of this decision is that all current Guan-detainees will immediately file to be heard in a US civilian court. Which state, by the way?”
In federal court, not in state court. They can do some forum-shopping as to which federal district, but a habeas petition is brought against the custodian of the detained person, which in this case would arguably be either the President or the Secretary of Defense. So the proper forum would be the US District Court for the District of Columbia (for suits against the President) or the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (for suits against the Defense Secretary, whose principal place of business is his office at the Pentagon, in Arlington).
“If they file to have their case heard in civilian court, then all of their activities amounts to at least attempted murder, which will get them life in prison.”
Uh, no, because mostly they haven’t been charged with crimes. Filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civil court doesn’t automatically get you charged with anything.
“Remember, they aren’t US citizens. They aren’t protected by the US constitution.”
While I agree with your comments, ET, the US Constitution by its own language doesn’t generally limit its protections to citizens, nor is the jurisdiction of the US courts limited to citizens.
Gitmo babies including Khadr,the baby terrorist,let em out ,sink or swim,yer free,Afghan is thataway and Canada is thisaway.Note to troops ,no more prisoners,the jail is broke.
They aren’t in uniform,so not recognized by Geneva convention,like they recognize it!!!.
All this pandering an handwringing is unecessary,We’s at war ,theys the bad guys,kick their asses good and come home
dave j – the comment about ‘life in prison’ wasn’t made by me.
I refer you to Scalia’s dissent on this ruling by the SC, where he says “the writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, fun in favor of aliens abroad” and this SC decision ‘abandons’ this principle.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
One could of course argue that the sentences subsequent to the first, which refers to ‘citizenship’ and the following sentences, which refer to ‘persons’ refer to different individuals – with ‘person’ not also being a ‘citizen’.
However, I think that is stretching the INTENT of the Amendment, and the SC is supposed to focus on original intent. Therefore, the US constitution refers only to citizens. I cannot, logically or empirically, understand how that constitution and its laws can refer to foreigners. Unfortunately for us in Canada, we who don’t have free speech.
As for the fact that the US court can deal with non-citizens, I already said that it could, i.e., it can deal with the 9-11 terrorists, who are not US citizens, but who committed crimes against Americans on US soil.
ET, I’m an American constitutional lawyer who worked as a staff attorney for the judiciary committee of a state legislature. I also very strongly adhere to the dissent’s position in this case, as I can tell you do, but you’re mistaken when it comes to this particular sub-issue. The Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment have all historically been read separately. If the Framers of the 14th Amendment had wanted to say “citizens” rather than “persons” where they used those terms, then they would have done so.
“Therefore, the US constitution refers only to citizens. I cannot, logically or empirically, understand how that constitution and its laws can refer to foreigners.”
Uh, very simply, because the Constitution does not GRANT rights: it RESTRICTS the powers of government. I now work as a prosecutor. If you, as a Canadian citizen, came down here and committed a crime in my jurisdiction, law enforcement would arrest you for it because you as a foreigner in the US are subject to US law. The state or the federal government (or both) could file charges in state or federal court, and those courts would then have the same jurisdiction over you as they would over a US citizen.
You would have the same right to counsel, the same right to due process, the same right to confront your accusers and all the same other procedural rights as a US citizen. If law enforcement had illegally stopped, arrested and/or searched you, you would have the same 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and your attorney could file the same motion to suppress any evidence that resulted from that as he or she would for a client who was a US citizen.
If any provision of state law (including the state constitution) discriminated against you in any way based on your nationality, that state law would be subject to strict scrutiny based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment; if federal law did so, because the federal government is not bound by 14th-Amendment Equal Protection and because the federal government has plenary authority over immigration, federal law would only be scrutinized for a rational basis.
If you were convicted, depending on the jurisdiction you would almost certainly have one level of mandatory appeal and another of discretionary appeal for any harmful error. If your appeals became final, you would also then have the ability to attack your conviction collaterally via motions for post-conviction relief, and then appeal any harmful error if THOSE were denied. If you were convicted in state court and exhausted your state-law post-conviction remedies, you could further attack your conviction by seeking habeas review in federal court. None of this has anything to do with you being a US citizen or not.
Of course, all of that is only true if you committed a crime on US territory or against US persons or property abroad, and were then held on US territory, unlike almost all the Gitmo detainees.
dave j – I am aware (12:59) that US law applies to anyone, whether citizen or alien, who commits the violation of the law on US soil. You’ve provided a really great outline of the process available to any alien terrorist from now on, in the US courts.
Normally, as you note, and as I’ve also noted before, US laws don’t apply to any alien who commits a violation that is NOT on US soil. And that is the situation with the Guantanamo detainees.
That’s an important point. US laws, with their rights and restrictions, can’t apply to aliens who committed their crimes against Americans..on foreign soil.
Effectively, this decision is setting up a new category of combatant, a description of ‘what is a civilian combatant’ in war.
Combatants in war are defined very clearly according to the Geneva Convention. Civilian combatants, those who do not wear the identifying uniform of their nation, are defined as illegal and without POW rights, which are military rights rather than civilian rights.
This ruling is setting up a different type of military combatant – one who has the rights of a civilian within the US. Even though he is not a citizen of the US. And importantly – Even though his actions were not carried out on US territory. And even though he’s not really a civilian.
Think about it. All and any terrorists, from now on, have immediate access to the US civil courts of law. They can bomb the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and yet, they’ll demand access to the US civil courts.
Dave J has outlined the numerous, multiple levels of appeal after appeal after appeal available to this terrorist in US civil courts. It will be impossible to deal with them as terrorists, to investigate them, to find out their connections and plans, to remove them from circulation and further actions.
It’s incredible. It’s defining someone engaged in an act of war (the terrorist) as in reality a civilian. It’s defining someone carrying out his hostile actions in a foreign land, as in reality carrying them out on US soil. And even though acting within a war action, he’s removed from military justice. That’s an astonishing legal definition of a terrorist.
Hello. Devil’s advocate here. You make very good points up there. There is, however, another side to all this. There’s a notion held dear, by the majority, turns out, however thin, that’s not entirely silly, habeas corpus holds a prisoner cannot be held indefinitely without being charged. It’s our poo-or-get-off-the-pot moment. Had a military tribunal and the prisoners run through it the Congress most likely would have supported it. They have, after all, caved on everything else. But now too much time has elapsed and something simply must be done. It’s also a balance of power thing. Observe: the push and shove between legislative, executive, and judicial branches, just like we all learn about in grade school. It’s just as well, not all these prisoners were picked up on the battlefield. Some were actually sold out. It’s a good thing to get busy with adjudicating these cases to separate the wheat from the chaff if nothing else.
If you think about it, it’s not at all a defeat for Bush. He’s had his way with this for his entire term. He’s already won, and big time. Now it’s somebody’s else’s problem, and somebody else’s consequence.
That is all. Very well, then, pile on.
“what legal rat’s nest allows USA to haul suspects half way around the world and warehouse them?”
They’re not “suspects.” This is a war: they are “the enemy.” If they were the uniformed soldiers of a foreign lawfully belligerent state’s military, the USA would be able to hold them as POW’s for the duration of hostilities. Surely you can see that combatants who VIOLATE the Geneva Convention by not wearing uniforms or insignia should be accorded fewer rights, not MORE?
You know what they used to call armed people under no state’s flag engaged in military or quasi-military action? They called them pirates, and they were subject to summary execution by anyone who captured them.
“dubya’s white house cant have it both ways. … the right wing clucks and clucks about a SC decision 8 years into the republican regime.”
I’m sorry, but these statements are examples of Bush Derangement Syndrome. This decision is monumentally larger than any individual president you dislike (I’m no fan of him, either, BTW), and you’re pathologically incapable of getting past that dislike to see the bigger picture. It is a direct usurpation of the authority of the political branches to conduct foreign and military policy. It is a naked power-grab by five unelected philosopher-kings in robes, a expression of judicial supremacy and judicial tyranny unequaled since at least Dred Scott.
“…habeas corpus holds a prisoner cannot be held indefinitely without being charged.”
Once again for the umpteenth time, how does the writ of a US District Court whose jurisdiction is expressly defined by statute as limited to its own district run to a base in Cuba? When before in history has any court held that habeas runs across international borders? Or applies to people captured on the battlefield in wartime? How is this case any different from the German prisoners in Eisentrager?
“Had a military tribunal and the prisoners run through it the Congress most likely would have supported it.”
They did. Are you that ignorant? The Court in Rasul and Hamdan said the President couldn’t act alone, so he proposed and Congress passed the military commissions statute that was being challenged in this case that we’re talking about. That’s why Scalia in his dissent said the Court in its prior ruling must’ve “just been kidding.”
I’m not an expert on any of this (but it was fun to read some of the comments and learn something).
I do however agree with bour3.
Gitmo has served it’s purpose and it now appears that Bush has won big time and we will probably not need a Gitmo in the future.
A future calamity will need a new solution for containing nuts and I have no doubt that the US will come up with a solution long enough to get the job done.
I think Dave J has explained the situation perfectly in response to the comments of the two ignorant and smug posters.
Facts are facts – and these two seem totally ignorant of the facts. Furthermore, reasoning based on facts leads one to inescapable conclusions.
The first is that it’s a judicial powergrab by unelected appointees and not merely an affront, not merely a snub, but an insistence on the operative superiority of these appointees to the elected powers of the nation.
Second, it harms, deeply, the fight against Islamic fascism. Islamic fascism is a new threat in the world because although it attacks a nation and indeed many nations, it doesn’t do so under the orders and protection of its own national identity. It operates as a non-national ideology; its recruits are international. It attacks anywhere and everywhere. The US – and other nations – are engaged in fighting this ideology.
The question then emerges – how does one deal with the captured prisoners? As has been explained ad nauseum, and ignored by the above twits, they aren’t POWs. They aren’t following the orders of any national government.
But they aren’t civilians either; they are engaged in military combat and against military actions. Facts.
When they are carrying out their vicious bombings and killings against civilians – then, indeed, they are defined as civilians and are dealt with in civilian courts in the country where the attacks took place: US, Britain, Spain, etc.
But, what about those who are carrying out military operations against military personnel, in the war zone? (Iraq, Afghanistan). They aren’t POWs. They are civilians – but their acts were carried out against the military. So, the military captures them – and takes them to Guantanamo. A POW is not ‘charged’ with being a soldier; they are simply kept until the end of the war. So, how does one deal with the same type of person, someone who is engaged in military actions, but not as a ‘national’.
Facts. They are kept for the duration of the war. Since the Geneva Protocols don’t apply, a new set is drawn up, called the DTAct (Detainee Treatment Act) which accords them basic proper treatment.
Again, they aren’t charged as ‘soldiers’; no POW is ever charged. Their acts were militant acts against a military – so, those acts are acknowledged as such, and they are defined as Detainees. For the duration of the war.
Followers of the ideology are charged as civilians only when their actions are carried out against civilians – eg, 9/11, Madrid, London, etc, etc.
Blame Bush ! …. for not working hard enough to stack the deck with conservatives at the US Court.
Are you calling me a smug poster and a twit, ET?
I was only trying to have a reasonable conversation.
I dont recall calling you a name or giving an answer that I thought I was better than you or your opinion.
keep calm, right of centre, keep calm. I wasn’t referring to you at all.
My name-calling, which I don’t define as name-calling but as descriptive attribution, referred to ‘flyboy’ and bour3. The first, for his obvious ignorance of the whole situation in Iraq and the whole war, the second, for his obvious oblivion to the answers about habeas corpus already discussed so far.
My fault and error ET I enjoyed the conversation with you.
If this was a debate I would have to say you won this round.
As I stated I dont know much about military justice and my stance was totally based on emotion and opinion only.
Thanks to you and Dave for a better perspective.
2 small questions for those of you who so eager to detain and torture prisoners without charge (for 6 years in some cases) or the right to a trial:
1.) Maher Arar was arrested, transfered to a secret prison and tortured:
“he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.”
Arar was completely innocent. Is this ok?
2.) If Maher Arar was your brother, friend, dad, uncle etc. (the prisoners held by the U.S. torturers are someone’s loved one) would you feel the same about detaining and torturing prisoners that have been charged with no crime?
more hate
gerry hawke – I suggest you find some facts to support your opinions.
First, there’s no evidence that Arar was tortured. None. Simply his own words.
Second, he’s a dual citizen; he holds Syrian citizenship. That’s why he was sent there. Why should Canada pay for what Syria allegedly did?
Third, the allegations of his links to Al Qaeda remain. They haven’t been thoroughly denied by facts.
Fourth, your insertion that ‘someone is someone’s brother/father etc’ is irrelevant. So were all the people killed by Al Qaeda in their various bombings, beheadings, etc etc.
Fifth – Guantanamo prisoners are combatants in a war. They are not POWs; they remain combatants. They are not held in a dirty Syrian jail.
Kindly get your facts in hand before you spout your nonsense.
“Kindly get your facts in hand before you spout your nonsense.”
Whoa there big fella, better cut back on the red meat.
The Honourable Dennis R. O’Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario cleared Maher of all terrorism allegations in intense and detailed Canadian federal government inquiry.
Evidence in that inquiry included that of Professor Stephen J. Toope, Fact Finder. He testified:
“I conclude that Mr. Maher Arar was subjected to torture in Syria. The effects of that experience,
and of consequent events and experiences in Canada, have been profoundly negative for
Mr. Arar and his family. . . . Mr. Arar’s
psychological state was seriously damaged and he remains fragile. His relationships with
members of his immediate family have been significantly impaired. Economically, the family
has been devastated.”
Guantanamo Bay may be cleaner but the prisoners are tortured and that makes the clean floor small comfort.
“your insertion that ‘someone is someone’s brother/father etc’ is irrelevant”
It may be irrelevant to you and others but your loved ones probably are not imprisoned and tortured.
Maher Arar is a Canadian, a human being, he, you, or anyone, should be subjected to the horrors he endured.
it’s best to preview before posting. How about: he, you, or anyone, should NEVER be subjected to the horrors he endured.
my apologies.
Again, there is no proof whatsoever that Arar was tortured. The claims by Arar about the attacks on his wrists – red for three weeks, his neck, his face. He was visited each month by the Canadian consulur staff; they said that no signs of physical abuse were ever observed – even on week after the alleged beatings. The entire ten months; no signs of abuse. None.
Even after he was released, he said nothing about physical abuse. When asked on the plane returning to Canada, he said nothing about physical abuse. The allegations he made of cables, whippings etc – must leave scars. In all verified cases, they do leave scars. These scars remain for life. He has none.
Toope, an activist,and hardly unbiased, provided a thoroughly inadequate report, lacking a medical report based on a physical examination. He merely relied on an oral interview with a doctor, Gruner, in Ottawa who specialized in ‘post traumatic stress’ and who had politically lobbied for Arar. Hardly unbiased.
There was no independent neutral medical exam; Arar, during his ten months in Syrian jail, was visited every month by the Canadian consul; they reported no evidence of torture, no bruising, nothing – despite Arar’s claims.
Equally, the pyschological details are subjective rhetoric. They sound similar to claims filed to the HRC about ‘feeling insulted’ and therefore, entitled to compensation’.
There is further, no proof, of his ‘purity of purpose’ in his many visits to the ME.
Because someone has ‘loved ones’ does not absolve them of guilt. As I said, because the 9/11 bombers had loved ones doesn’t absolve them of the guilt for their atrocious act. Perhaps you feel sympathy for them, but that’s your choice. I consider them guilty of murder.
Again, there are some experts on terrorism who consider Arar’s claims of torture to be fabricated, and others who remain suspicious of his travels to the ME.
If Arar actually was tortured, he DOES have a remedy: he can sue Syria and/or individual Syrian officials for damages in civil court in the US under the Alien Torts Act. If he wins, he can try to use the judgment to attach Syrian assets in the US or anywhere else that will enforce it. Of course, since it sounds like there’s essentially no evidence he was tortured other than his say-so, such a suit most likely wouldn’t survive a motion for summary judgment and ever be heard by a jury.