Guantanamo Detention Discussion Thread

Just as an update, this has been reported in the Australian press, but not so much elsewhere:

HERE

THE decision of the United States to send 14 terrorist masterminds to Guantanamo Bay will allow them to be charged and prosecuted before military commissions, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

Mr Downer told parliament that the information from one detainee had been important to Australia because it led to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was the al-Qaeda linkman with Jemaah Islamiah, and Hambali, who was the Jemaah Islamiah linkman with al-Qaeda.

I can simply state that, for all the criticism of the United States that you sometimes get in this country and internationally on the actions it is taking in the fight against terrorism and the controversy about these particular sorts of measures, it is important to bring them home, bring them back to the war against terrorism in our immediate region and understand how important it has been to get information from detainees that has led to the capture and, in some cases, the killing of terrorists who might have otherwise killed innocent people," he said.

Again, for those who may be unfamiliar with him, Downer is the Australian Foreign Minister (which would be similiar to the US Sec of State) and this was speech he made just a day ago.

Also interesting is that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General for England, has also softened his criticism of Gitmo after authorities in the UK detained 16 during the recent high visibility terror sweeps there.

Is there a common ground developing? A mutual understanding among international parties?

 

I think there is some agreement that the Bush administration has cleaned up its act a bit when it comes to Guantanamo - enough at any rate that sending terrorist suspects to Guantanamo is considered a significant improvement over leaving them to rot in clandestine CIA torture dungeons.

 

Tortured Logic

Tortured logic
Sep 7th 2006
From Economist.com

George Bush admits that the CIA did have secret foreign prisons where interrogators used ?alternative? procedures on terrorist suspects, but claims it was all to the good

AMERICA has long been suspected of using harsh interrogation techniques, possibly even torture, to extract information from suspected terrorists in secret CIA prisons around the world. Now, in the first official acknowledgement, George Bush has admitted holding ?a small number? of suspects outside the United States in a ?separate programme? run by the CIA using ?an alternative set of procedures?.

In a speech at the White House on Wednesday September 6th, Mr Bush insisted that the programme, which officials say has involved up to 100 of the most notorious suspects over the past five years, had been ?necessary? in order to ?save American lives?. He declined to name the countries involved for fear of provoking retribution against ?our allies?. Nor did he explain why these particular suspects had not simply been sent straight to Guantánamo Bay for interrogation, along with some 770 others who have been held at the camp.

Mr Bush also refused to reveal what interrogation methods had been used, saying only that, although ?tough?, they were also ?safe, lawful and necessary?. Many believe that the main purpose of the CIA?s secret prisons was both to hide the torture and other cruel treatment used to extract information from particularly recalcitrant prisoners, and to protect American personnel from possible prosecution for war crimes. Although many will remain sceptical, Mr Bush insisted that America did not use torture, saying: ?It?s against our laws. I have not authorised it, and I will not authorise it.?

To coincide with the president?s speech, the Pentagon issued its long-awaited new Army Field Manual giving guidance on interrogation techniques. As well as repeating its general prohibition on torture and other cruel treatment, it also explicitly bans for the first time eight specific practices including forced nudity, hooding, the use of dogs, sexual humiliation and ?water-boarding? (simulated drowning). All of these techniques have become associated with the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo that has so shocked the world.

Reportedly, the last 14 of the terrorist suspects being held at secret locations abroad were moved to Guantánamo on Monday where at least some may face trial for war crimes before special military commissions. In June the Supreme Court ruled that the tribunals set up by Mr Bush at the camp were unlawful because they had not been approved by Congress and did not provide inmates with the minimum legal and human-rights protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. These, it insisted, applied to all military prisoners, regardless of where they were being held. Mr Bush has always maintained that the suspected terrorists he dubs ?enemy combatants? have no protections.

It is that ruling that convinced Mr Bush to end, at least temporarily, the secret CIA programme. He said he was worried that Americans involved in capturing and interrogating terrorist suspects could be at risk of war crimes prosecution ?simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way?, as he put it. He wants Congress to pass a law explicitly banning detainees from using the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue Americans in federal courts. ?Our troops can take great pride in the work they do at Guantánamo,? he added.

Mr Bush, who continues to insist that terrorist suspects should not be tried by ordinary courts-martial or civilian courts, this week introduced legislation to revamp the military commissions in line with the Supreme Court?s ruling. But while the proposed rules are an improvement, they still allow sensitive evidence to be kept from defendants. Although officials hope to get the new tribunals running by early next year, they could face more legal cha

 

Can we doubt anything? In every rumor there is fact. If the US is to take the lead - a leadership role with the government/the people supporting those actions. - then why can?t the discussion start with the lack of Civil Rights? Whether or not these men are involved in terrorism, they have as of yet not been charged. Don?t democratic countries have specific laws or processes whereby an accused person must be charged in a specific period of time?

I?m not looking to open a can of worms, but I?d like understand how the US transported foreign people to another country, is holding those people without their consent and we are hearing about torture.

 

I for one hope that the laws (which were create by Republicans a decade ago ironically) stand. If you're going to make the claim that you don't torture, then don't. Those military personnel knew that they may be violating the Conventions with their actions. How is admitting that the CIA and military have been carting around prisoners in secreat facilities and doing God knows what to get information from them without any oversight supposed to be a good thing? If anything else, it could well lead to the interrogators and other persons involvled, and possibly members of the Administration being charged with Geneva violations themselves. Is he hoping that admission will prevent a backlash? I'd be more worried about it making voters wonder what other actions have been committed by the Administration, in addition to this, the wiretapping, and the datamining.

 

As I posted before, I'm cool with rough treatment of terror prisoners.

But check this out. I thought that, at least according to Sen. Kennedy (the miserable, drunk driving, killing, lying scumbag), that Saddam's torture rooms had already been reopened and run by the Bush administration.

Guess not.

 

Not that I assume you're plussed abotu savoir faire J-Rod, but it's poor form to try to justify the shortcomings of one by pointing out the shortcomings of another...

E_S

 

Sure it is. I was just using a colorful method of pointing out how the treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib was exagerated and outright fabricated in Gitmo.

 

Does torture really work? Most intelligence experts say no.

Interesting article given the debate here, gives a few examples of the 'quality' of information the US has gotten from it's prisoners.

 

Then you're cool with American soldiers being "roughly treated" when they're captured on foreign soil? You don't think they should have the protections of the Geneva Conventions as they do now? Just curious.

 

Then you're cool with American soldiers being "roughly treated" when they're captured on foreign soil? You don't think they should have the protections of the Geneva Conventions as they do now? Just curious.

Please don't confuse terrorists with soldiers. And for the record, I am cool with the thought of American terrorists being treated roughly. Not that we actually have any enemies that would treat our soldiers as described in the Geneva Convention anyway...but whatever.

 

Terrorists are either soldiers or criminals. We already have methods of conduct in the treatment and detention of both. Some nations view US military personnel in much the same way our nation views terrorists. If you take away the guidelines set forth in the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of POWs etc, then you give away any legal recourse: ie war crimes tribunals, etc. I guess you believe it's better to stoop to the level of those who would harm our soldiers, rather than stick to the moral high ground... oh, sorry, we lost the moral high ground a while ago. What was I thinking?

 

If you take away the guidelines set forth in the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of POWs etc, then you give away any legal recourse

Those guidelines are set forth for soldiers. Again, please don't confuse terrorists for soldiers. The aren't. Yet treating them as mere criminals is ineffective. See: 9/11.

 

Those guidelines are set forth for soldiers. Again, please don't confuse terrorists for soldiers. The aren't. Yet treating them as mere criminals is ineffective. See: 9/11.

Then they're soldiers. You can't treat a criminal like a soldier or vice versa. So what do you consider them? Terrorists? And what are terrorists?

 

Then they're soldiers. You can't treat a criminal like a soldier or vice versa. So what do you consider them? Terrorists? And what are terrorists?

They can't be soldiers as described in the Geneva Conventions as they don't fight under a flag or uniform. And a terrorist is a paramilitary group that uses violence on a civilian population for political reasons.

 

Then they're criminals.

 

That line of thinking hasn't helped us so far, has it?

 

Has it? Last I recall it was a police matter in Toronto and London that stopped terrorist attacks. Also, if 'that thinking' hasn't worked so far then we should treat them like soldiers--which you say they're not.

 

They used methods our police aren't allowed to due to, IMO, misreadings of the Constitution.

And as non-state fighters there is no leadership accountability and as such they can't be treated as soldiers.

 

Then they should be treated as criminals. You see how your logic's not really working here?

 

Saw 9/11. Those who flew the planes were not criminals until they committed the acts; therefor, unless you're advocating the use of psychics a la the Minority Report, you're use of 9/11 as an analogy is as irrelevant as those analogies used by your hero, Dubya.

The guidelines under the Geneva Conventions are set forth for the treatment of combatants and POWs. Are you then saying we are not waging a "war" on terrorists? Are we not actively seeking to attack them for the purposes of killing or capturing them?

Let's go back to your insinuation about the inability to treat them as criminals.

What happened to the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing in '93?
1) they were caught,
2) they were charged under US law,
3) they were convicted under US law,
4) they have been imprisoned as a result of their lawful conviction,
5) they handed over vital information to US Intelligence agencies without interrogators violating US laws or the Geneva Conventions (which I don't beleive even applied at the time, due to their status as suspected criminals).

What's the difference between the '93 bombing and the '01 attacks?
The '93 perpetrators have been brought to justice and are serving their sentences.
The '01 perpetrators are in quasi-legal limbo or still at large while the US invades and occupies a country with no relation whatsoever to the attack.

How's that working out for us?

 

But no one is actually addressing what is contained in the treaties and/or the law, and that's the problem that is causing everyone to get hung up.

It's not a dodge, but the Geneva Conventions do only apply to a narrowly defined group of people. The requirements are listed right in the text.

Additionally, Geneva allows confinement (at minimum for the duration of hostilities) and doesn't exactly require the standards of proof that we are used to in criminal court.

One simply can't compare the US criminal justice system with the Geneva Conventions. They aren't the same. Again, one isn't "better" or "worse" than the other, they are simply different, and apply in different circumstances.

Ok, so what do you do with those who don't qualify? That's the question that remains the foundation of the debate.

 

A few points.

1) You are incorrect about one aspect of the Geneva Conventions. The guidelines are set forth for lawful combatants and POWs. At least in many cases, terrorists do not meet the criteria set forth in the 3rd Geneva Convention for a combatant who must be treated as a POW.

In fact, both the 3rd and the 4th Geneva Conventions include exemptions for such individuals as spies and mercenaries, making them not protected under the Conventions.

2) You neglect jurisdictional issues. Consider: OBL plans an attack on the US, but does so from Afghanistan, where such an attack on the US is not illegal. At no time does OBL enter the jurisdiction of the United States, and as such, cannot have commited a crime in any US jurisdiction. How then would that make him a criminal?

The problem with looking at terrorism as a purely criminal act is that it is purely reactive. Until they commit the crime (the attack), law enforcement is more or less powerless to act. Additionally, as long as they remain outside the legal jurisdiction of the law enforcement of the country attacked, that country has no legal authority to arrest them.

Kimball Kinnison

 

And the thing is, the US and other countries already have differing standards depending on the jurisdiction anyway. It's not a new concept.

Let's step away from the Geneva Convention right now and examine a neutral illustration. In the US, the standards in civil court are different than the standards in criminal court. Typically, civil court has a lower standard of proof, the penalties are different, and in many cases, the process is streamlined. I'm sure everyone can come up with other examples.

But because the authorities for both are spelled out under the law, the two only apply in their respective jurisdictions.

One can't argue that the state try a first degree murder suspect under tort law because that's where they think it should go, nor would anyone suggest that a rent dispute be handled in felony DUI court. Sometimes the two may overlap- A person may face criminal charges for murder, and then later face civil penalities, but the processes remain separate and distinct. And as I said above, one isn't better or worse than the other, they simply apply in different circumstances.

So I don't understand why there is so much confusion about Geneva, especially since the requirements are listed right in the text. I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that somewhere along the way, popular opinion characterized Geneva as a kind of universal legal document, when in fact, Geneva is extremely narrow in focus.

And I'm not suggesting that the standard of law isn't important. I'm suggesting the opposite. The standard of law IS important, but that's why the actual authority has to be examined.

 

The Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling in July disagrees with you. You may recall that the USSC ruled that the Geneva Conventions (in particular Common Article Three) did indeed apply not just to Gitmo detainees, but also to those individuals held in hidden CIA-run prisons.