Bush Overruled on Enemy Combatant

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
... military prisoner ...

Out of interest, is this the official term for the status of the people kept at Guantanamo Bay?

I know the US Government can't call them POWs or suchlike, as then they're afforded certain rights under the Geneva Convention. They are also blatently not civilian criminals, so i was wondering what the US Government was calling them.

[L-Fitzgerald]

Since I dont know their official status, perhaps it is "enemy combatant," because they certainly are not POW's because no war was declared so Prisoner of the US Military would have been more appropriate.

But, I have a question as well?

"U.S. Constitution; Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Didn't Padilla admit to having been trained in Afghanistan? It seems that both he and Mossaui are trying to cover their butts!

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
Since I dont know their official status, perhaps it is "enemy combatant," because they certainly are not POW's because no war was declared so Prisoner of the US Military would have been more appropriate.

...

War was declared.

President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism" and the invasion/liberation of Afganistan was the first step in the war on terror. I'm sure you could quite justifiably argue that this was just hot air for the media and to keep the American people happy, but he still said it. Either way, it's a small point, I was just curious as to their official name.

Although i do think it disgraceful that in a country where freedom, liberty and justice are seen as such high priorities, that people, some of which are guilty of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, can be kept against their will for years, without access to proper legal representation and without charges being pressed.

Frankly, Guantanamo Bay must be a huge embaressment for every American.

As for your question L, sorry, i can't answer that one, hopefully someone else will though.

[L-Fitzgerald]

Well, that's true, but what do you classify the captured enemy.. prisoners of war. You must first recognize that these people are members of a terrorist organization that does not recognize nor is recognized by the Geneva Convention.

I don't view Guantanamo as a stain on our country. But, since others do perhaps they can offer alternatives to our keeping them locked up. We've already had two incidents wherein Muslim Chaplin's violated military regulations, and orders regarding these prisoners. But don't that statement to read that I'm being paranoid about all Muslims. Far from it, I have a number of close friends that are Muslim. I have never agreed with giving those that would destroy our way of life all the freedoms and rights afforded Americans.

I would prefer that since the predominant number are Muslim, let them be tried in a Muslim Court of Law, according to Shia Laws, and see how quickly they change their tune.

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
Well, that's true, but what do you classify the captured enemy.. prisoners of war. You must first recognize that these people are members of a terrorist organization that does not recognize nor is recognized by the Geneva Convention.

All of them? Each and every last one? Do the US government have proof of this? I'm sure you do have some real terrorists locked up there, but i'm also pretty sure you've got some innocent men who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. A speedy and fair trial would sort this out.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
I don't view Guantanamo as a stain on our country. But, since others do perhaps they can offer alternatives to our keeping them locked up.

Maybe you get a different view when you're outside looking in, rather than inside, viewing yourself. Offer alternatives .... how about presenting the evidence before a fair and just trial? Or is that a little radical? Then those found guilty of terrorist crimes can be punished as seen fit, and the innocent people your country has kept incarcerated for years now can be set free and compensated for their illegal detention.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
I would prefer that since the predominant number are Muslim, let them be tried in a Muslim Court of Law, according to Shia Laws, and see how quickly they change their tune.

Sounds an excellent idea to me. As long as they are tried speedily in a fair and just court of law i don't think people will really mind which laws and punishments would apply to them. I'm sure most people (bar the ammnesty international lot) would be quite happy for hands/heads/other appropiate body parts to be removed from those found guilty.

[KhawMengLee]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
We've already had two incidents wherein Muslim Chaplin's violated military regulations, and orders regarding these prisoners.

Ah, but why did he do that? He's an American. Not some outsider. Yet he chose to sneak information out...why? Could it be that what he saw in there changed his heart? His priorities?

Remember, like a suicide bomber. No one risks his/her life without good reason. Rather than looking at it in black and white lets analyze the grey, eh?

[L-Fitzgerald]

I was thinking more in line of those that refused to step up to having the UN follow through on its resolutions, and then refused to partake in helping bring an end to the terrorist be willing to take them into their country, and deal with them. Maybe if a few bombs went off in some European capitals and more innocent people lost their lives then the tunes would change....

Oh yes, where was the outcry when the Mexican government was suppressing the farmers and rebels that they branded terrorists a few years back... I could go on and on, but it seems that the US is easier to criticize.... wonder what the world would be like if Stalin had our economic power for the past 40 years. Pictures of Lenin would be in almost every schoolroom in the western world, and in the far east it would have been up there right next to Mao.

Perhaps we should free those in Gtmo until trial? OK, will you accept them in your country until the trial date?

A war on Terror is not a formal war in the sense outlined in the Geneva Accords, and I've never heard anyone take Saddam to task regarding how his military tortured Coalition forces during the Gulf war, nor what he did to the Kurds, or Iranians, or those that rebelled against him shortly after the Gulf War ended.

If people want to criticize the US then they should be willing to criticize eveyone that violates International Law regardless.

As for the Muslim Chaplin's. They may be Chaplin's but they disobeyed orders, and disagreeing with policy is one thing, but why were they trying to smuggle out sketches of the prison area? That goes far beyond policy or religious disagreements.

[Senjojutsu]

No American President from a pure US legalistic standpoint "declares war".

============
US Constitution
Article I. Section 8.

The Congress shall have power ...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
============

If I am not mistaken the Congress has only formally declared war on two occasions during the past 100 years, World War I & II.

That does not mean various US Presidents with the majority support of Congress via funding and resolutions have not engaged in many military acts and campaigns, i.e., "wars" including Vietnam.

[larsen_huw]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...

Oh yes, where was the outcry when the Mexican government was suppressing the farmers and rebels that they branded terrorists a few years back... I could go on and on, but it seems that the US is easier to criticize.... wonder what the world would be like if Stalin had our economic power for the past 40 years. Pictures of Lenin would be in almost every schoolroom in the western world, and in the far east it would have been up there right next to Mao.

...

I don't think Mexico tries to sell itself as the land of the brave and the home of the free. The USA tries to make itself out as a place of truth, freedom and justice. When these are shown to be blatent lies, people will criticize the USA. If you want to be seen as number 1, you've got to expect to be held to a higher standard than others. Do professional athletes turn round and yell at their detractors, "hey, i'm better at this than you are!". No, they go out and do their talking through positive action.

As for the Lenin/Stalin thing. You show typical American ignorance for world history there. Stalin wasn't pro-Lenin, he was barely pro-communist. Stalin was pro-Stalin and while he paid lip service to communism and those who went before him, all he was really interested in was expanding his own power.

You also forget that if it wasn't for Stalin, there'd be pictures of Adolf Hitler up in most European classrooms and we'd be goose-stepping round the playing fields! That doesn't make the USSR a good country, and neither (necessarily) does keeping Stalin's picture out of European classrooms make the USA a good country.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
Perhaps we should free those in Gtmo until trial? OK, will you accept them in your country until the trial date?
...

We've tried, but your government refuses. The UK governemnt has asked on multiple occasions to have the UK citizens which are illegally held in Guantanamo Bay returned for detention in the UK, but the USA has refused. I beleive other countries have tried this as well. The USA has also refused. So yes, we would accept them, however the USA is afraid of letting them go.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
A war on Terror is not a formal war in the sense outlined in the Geneva Accords, and I've never heard anyone take Saddam to task regarding how his military tortured Coalition forces during the Gulf war, nor what he did to the Kurds, or Iranians, or those that rebelled against him shortly after the Gulf War ended.

If people want to criticize the US then they should be willing to criticize eveyone that violates International Law regardless.
...

I assume from that last sentance i've quoted there that you're admitting your country has broken international laws by keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Yes, i'm quite willing to criticize all countries who break international law ... starting with the most two faced ones who claim to be fighting for freedom and democracy while illegally incarcerating people without any legal representation, without charging them with any crimes and violating their human rights.

As an aside, thank for the clarification on US law with regards to the declaration of war John.

[L-Fitzgerald]

Well when the Italians arrested those that Hi-jacked the Achille Lauro, they then turned these same people loose. And you are mistaken regarding my take on World History, you are very mistaken in that regard for I am not an Ignorant [or Ugly] American. As for setting standards, perhaps setting standards with regard to terrorists needs to be rewritten. Especially when those same terrorists teach hate in schools funded by UN Charities, the same UN whose members sold illegal weapons systems to Iraq. Including advanced Russian Fighters found buried in the sands north of Baghdad during this last incursion. As for the UK, your own country has not been above subverting laws when it suits them.

For example: everyone points to the UK with regard to gun control, but the truth is the Government ran all over their citizens rights when they banned ownership of guns.

Finally, I do not agree that we have violated International Law regarding the Gtmo Detainees. Can you qualify and define their status under the Geneva Accords regarding Prisoners of War? If I'm not mistaken these people are classified as "Illegal Combatants," not POW's. And I dont see where any of their own countries have stated they will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. All I've heard is whining about how their rights are being violated! But no one speaks for the 3000 + NON-COMBATANTS [sorry if it seems that I'm shouting - I'm not just trying to make a point] that died on 9-11, or didn't they have the right to go to work, go home and enjoy that day like any other.

Perhaps we should have just taken the tact of having each of these prisoners die of their wounds before they could be treated. This is not a war in the sense of England and her Allies facing the Nazis's and their allies, and I wasn't thrilled that we turned Stalin into Uncle Joe. This is a different type of war, and the rules have still to be defined..... we aren't perfect, but we're also not afraid to take on evil. Unlike the UN that wimps out almost everytime.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Catalase
Oy.

Only the 9th Circuit would decide that enemy combatants have a right guaranteed to American CITIZENS.

Let's start with this. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't confer any rights. It is only a statement of rights that are believed to be natural or "God-given," and at no point does it state that those rights are only for U.S. citizens-it states "all men," and that's what the founding fathers meant. That means that, according to the Bill of Rights, at any rate, the men detained at Guantanamo Bay do have rights guaranteed to American CITIZENS.

Except.......

There is legal precedence for the whole "enemy combatants" thing. In past wars all nations have detained enemy civilians for indefinite periods under various examples. Our government has suspended various Constitutional rights in the past, and will continue to do so. The 9th circuit courts ruling isn't even questioning the legality of the "enemy combatant" designation and treatment, it only questions the legality of the Executive branch's(president) wholesale declaration of such. While the treatment and detention of the men in Gitmo may be morally and ethically questionable to some, it is, in and of itself, legal-both in terms of U.S. law and international law. The only real question is whether the use of such a designation and detention by what amounts to a royal fiat from the Executive branch and the Department of Justice-not the Congress and the Department of Defense-is legal.

As for M. Padilla-he is an American citizen, captured on American soil, whose only readily apparent crime is gross stupidity.If he did the things that are believed of him, he must be tried in a court of law, and accorded all the rights due to him as a citizen. All that has been set aside is his designation as an "enemy combatant." Think about it-you do a Google search for some sort of information that is readily available on the Internet about dirty bombs or such-as research for your novel, say.You then go to Egypt to look see the pyramids, or Morocco, or even Pakistan-for more research. Upon your return to the U.S. you're arrested, with $11,000 in traveler's checks, instead of cash as in Mr. Padilla's case, and held for months without being able to see an attorney, our family or a priest, or even being charged with a single crime-because, except for "thinking" and possible association with others, you haven't committed any crime.

[L-Fitzgerald]

Didnt Padilla admit to having travel and trained with Al Qeada? I believe the crux of his complaint is that he wants to call up known, admitted high ranking terrorist to attest to the fact that he was there, but wasn't privy to the high level decisions or training specifically centered on attacking the US. It's Chutspah, tantamont to killing your parents and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.

Not unlike the Chutspah seem on this forum from time to time.

[elder999]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
Didnt Padilla admit to having travel and trained with Al Qeada? I believe the crux of his complaint is that he wants to call up known, admitted high ranking terrorist to attest to the fact that he was there, but wasn't privy to the high level decisions or training specifically centered on attacking the US. It's Chutspah, tantamont to killing your parents and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.

Not unlike the Chutspah seem on this forum from time to time.

In and of itself,none of that is exactly criminal-and are, for the most part, allegations. THe crux of the "complaint" comes from lawyers who have merely taken up his case-he hasn't spoken, or voiced any complaint to anyone except the U.S. military. They did that, not because they're bleeding heart liberals (though I have no doubt that they are!) but because they believe-rightly-that if the government is permitted to treat himhtis way, they can treat any American citizen that way.

C'mon, do you really believe that an obvious MORON like Padilla is just going to get on the phone and instigate some sort of attack on the U.S.? Can you honestly say that the reason for burying him in jail without any legal recourse or even being charged with a crime is because he represents a plausible and substatntive threat to the U.S., or because he has valuable intelligence to offer that might be revealed in court?

The only reason he's been treated the way he has-aside from being a "member" of al Qaeda, and an obviously criminal idiot-is because his was an easy arrest and his treatment allows people like yourself to believe that John Ashcroft is doing a bang-up job protecting us. Padilla's arrest and detention was only meant to take the heat off Ashcroft-unfair heat, I might add-for "dropping the ball" on 9-11.
It's just to make you think he's doing something.

[larsen_huw]

L, there's a fair bit here, so i'll take it piece by piece.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
And you are mistaken regarding my take on World History, you are very mistaken in that regard for I am not an Ignorant [or Ugly] American.
...

Firstly, i never claimed you were ugly (or at least i don't think i did ... my appologies if it appeared that way).

Secondly, i'm i'm mistaken, then why did you confuse Lenin and Stalin in that way. Also, if you did have a good grasp of world history, you'd of realised that ol' Uncle Jo did keep Hitler from taking over Europe, and that in no way mitigated some of his other less savoury actions. Same applies to the USA.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
As for setting standards, perhaps setting standards with regard to terrorists needs to be rewritten. Especially when those same terrorists teach hate in schools funded by UN Charities, the same UN whose members sold illegal weapons systems to Iraq. Including advanced Russian Fighters found buried in the sands north of Baghdad during this last incursion.
...

Similar to the way the USA sold military items (i honestly don't know what ... ask Donnald Rumsfeld (excuse my spelling, i can't be bothered to look up how his name is spelt)) to Iraq in the 80's? That's a high standard, isn't it? Selling military items to a dictator who gasses his own people.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
As for the UK, your own country has not been above subverting laws when it suits them.
For example: everyone points to the UK with regard to gun control, but the truth is the Government ran all over their citizens rights when they banned ownership of guns.
...

All true. I don't agree with it, and think it's wrong. It's a public embaressment to our nation. Still can't see what that's got to do with you not seeing illegally detaining potentially innocent people indefinately and not seeing that you're in the wrong.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
Finally, I do not agree that we have violated International Law regarding the Gtmo Detainees.
...

OK, lets have a look at the UN Human Rights Commission.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Taking away people's liberty without a reason .... strike 1.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Detaining indefinately without charge ..... strike 2.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Not allowed a trial ...... strike 3 and you're out!

OK, scrolling down further i can see that the charter kinda repeats itself with some of it's articles, but i think i could find another 2 or 3 the USA has broken over the treatment of the Guantanamo Bay captives, but we'll leave it with those 3 for now.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
Can you qualify and define their status under the Geneva Accords regarding Prisoners of War?
...

Not really, i'm not a laywer.

Would you agree by the same token that any allied servicemen who were captured by the Taliban should not of been allowed any rights from the Geneva Convention? Or as soldiers in a combat zone should they be treated as combatants, and given the rights afforded to them under the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
But no one speaks for the 3000 + NON-COMBATANTS [sorry if it seems that I'm shouting - I'm not just trying to make a point] that died on 9-11, or didn't they have the right to go to work, go home and enjoy that day like any other.
...

So two wrongs make a right? If you crash planes into my non-combatents, i'll illegally detain yours indefinately? All tikkety-boo!

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
...
Perhaps we should have just taken the tact of having each of these prisoners die of their wounds before they could be treated. This is not a war in the sense of England and her Allies facing the Nazis's and their allies, and I wasn't thrilled that we turned Stalin into Uncle Joe. This is a different type of war, and the rules have still to be defined..... we aren't perfect, but we're also not afraid to take on evil. Unlike the UN that wimps out almost everytime.

The terrorists the USA has captured can be killed/allowed to die of their wounds/detained indefinately/whatever you wish ... once it's been prooved they are TERRORISTS and not NON-COMBATENTS [sorry if it seems that I'm shouting - I'm not just trying to make a point] then the USA is free to do with them what they wish.

However, i don't think that you can put your hand on your heart and say that every man, woman and child in Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist. Some of them will of just been people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If the USA beleives they are all terrorists, try them all fairly. Then once they are all found guilty you can do what you wish.

Finally, no, the USA isn't afraid to take on evil, and they should be commended for that. That's why i'm proud to see British troops standing next to their American brothers in arms in combat zones around the world. However, on the Guantanamo Bay you are plain wrong.

eek! Just looked at this on the preview ... it's bit of a monster! Hope at least some of it is readable and makes some sense!

[L-Fitzgerald]

I dont believe Ashcroft is doing such a bang-up job. Hell if I were in the other camp believe me I could have done more than just crash airplanes. We still are vunerable, and although these people are as intelligent, even more than most Americans they seem to lack sophistication in many other aspects of American life and because of that have not been able to truly exploit other weaknesses that exist in the fabric of our society.

As for dropping the ball, lets not even go there. I was taken to task for living in history on that one, and my responce was to ask for meaningful alternatives to the bloodletting, and hate mongering. And I'm still waiting for an answer to that question along with the one about who was the first Israeli Suicide Bomber?

You have a nice Holiday 999, regardless of whether it was Ramadan, Kwanza, Hogmanny, or just plain ole Christmas and New Year....

and sorry, but it's to late to wish you "Kung hay fat choi"