How are we supposed to convict the Guantanamo Bay prisoners?

[DealsGapRider]

Yesterday during a thread about Cuba, the subject of Guantanamo Bay was brought up by a few people eager to draw similarities between our treatment of Muslim prisoners and Castro's crimes against the Cuban people. A number of DUers seemed deeply bothered by the fact that the prisoners at Gitmo had not been convicted in a court of law, so it is illegal and immoral for us to hold them. Indeed, it is a "human rights violation," according to some.

So my question is, how are we supposed to convict these people? And if we cannot prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact terrorists or high-ranking Taliban officials, should they be let go?

I say that it would be nearly impossible to convict many, if not most of them, but that we should nevertheless continue to hold them. As I said yesterday, "How are we supposed to prove in an open trial that the prisoner really was captured in Afghanistan and that he was firing at US troops? The only witnesses are the prisoner and his captors. If he was captured on the battlefield, chances are that there aren't a lot of objective witnesses around."

Finally, I want to clear up something from one of my posts yesterday that got me accused of racism. I said, "Face it, before the war Afghanistan was crawling with Arabs -- not Afghans, but Arabs -- who received training in al Qaeda camps and were allied with the Taliban government." What I meant was, why would there be so many Arabs from so many different countries all together in Afghanistan if they weren't there because of an association with al Qaeda? I was not trying to make any perjorative statement about Arabs in general and apologize if I gave that impression.

[Brian Sweat]

1. So we just lock people up because we THINK they might be terrorists.

If they are criminals, then they should be given a fair trial. If we don't have proof they are criminals, then we have no right to hold them. At least, that is how it is supposed to work in my country.


If they are prisoners of war, then they should be treated as such.

They are not being treated as prisoners of war and they are not being given fair trials. In the country where I was raised, this is considered wrong. I guess I don't live in that country any more.

[oldcoot]

6. We also may be violating international law

We have signed treaties and are bound by international law to treat prisoners of war in a certain fashion. Holding these people indefinitely, some of whom are children, may violate international law. Our credibility is at stake in the international community and if we want to save our credibility, we need to start acting like a civilized nation again.

[Caution]

2. In answer to your question about arabs in Afghanistan

Why are there Asians in the U.S. Army? Mexicans? Germans, Italians, Russians, Canadians?

Because they believe in the cause they are fighting for.

I don't think the Taliban provided a good government, but they fought a WAR, that means those "captured" in afghanistan and held at Gitmo are prisoners of war and thus are afforded certain rights under the Geneva Convention. If they are being held as criminals, then they also have rights regardless of their nationality. We try foreign nationals every single day in this country.

These people are human beings and everyone is entitled to fair and equal treatment under the law. If we don't have enough evidence to convict these men then they should be freed it is that simple. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is one of the most fundamental aspects of our society, it prevents the United States from becoming a police state where the government can simply accuse one of a crime in order to silence that individual.

Will we maybe release dangerous individuals who hate the United States? Maybe. Who knows. Unless we can prove that they have participated in a terrorist conspiracy we have no way of knowing if they were simply immigrants to Afghanistan who happen to be arabs who maybe joined the army becuase they needed a job.

Just because Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush says they are terrorists does not actually make them terrorists.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. So what do we do with them?

Hold them for life without trial? I repeat from the previous thread: we didn't even do that to the worst Nazi war criminals. But of course, they were Europeans, and it would have been (sarcasm alert) unseemly to sentence Europeans to life imprisonment or the death penalty without trial.

Rehabilitate them? How? Through brainwashing them into becoming good ol' Murrican Southern Baptists who recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning?

I have a problem with the legal status of these prisoners as a whole. Are they prisoners of war? In that case, they're supposed to be repatriated when hostilities are over.

Are they war criminals? Then they should be tried for specific crimes.

Is shooting at American troops a crime? Well, whatever you think of their ideology, these guys were under attack from American troops, so it would have been unnatural for them not to shoot back. If we set a precedent saying that shooting back at someone who is attacking your stronghold is a cause for criminal detention, then no losing army in the world is safe from that kind of treatment.

Think also of the repercussions. In the Islamic world, family loyalty is everything, and the culture is into avenging perceived wrongs against self or family members, as well as maintaining family "honor." Each of these prisoners has a huge extended family who are even now plotting how to avenge their brother/son/father/cousin's humiliation. If the family members weren't anti-American before, they are now.

If I were in charge of dealing with the Guantanamo prisoners, I'd first sort them by nationality and begin negotiating with their countries of origin to take them back on the condition that they serve prison sentences back home. We can't guarantee that the governments will carry out the sentences, but what's the alternative?

I'll tell you what the alternative is: Halliburton getting paid millions of dollars of taxpayer money every year for the next fifty years. You may have read the newspaper accounts of how they won a contract to expand the Guantanamo prison facilities, didn't you? They're obviously expecting to have more clients. I wonder who they'll be.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Remember "rule of law"?

That little phrase was being bleated about just a few years ago.

If we cannot prove--in a court of law & not some trumped up "military tribunal"--that they should be held, they should be let go. Period. Of course, if any of those released were not anti-American before, they just might be by now. Rather unfortunate...

Also, many "Arabs" came to Afghanistan to assist in the fight against the Soviets--which our government supported. Some of them stayed but not all of them were necessarily allied with Al Qaeda.

After WWII, the Nazi bigwigs were tried before the world in Nuremburg. Is there any shred of a possibility that any of those held in Guantanamo were guilty of that level of evil? Why should the prisoners with darker skin be treated so much worse?

Castro's regime is not innocent, but this situation does, indeed, show that we have no reason to claim the moral high ground.

[IrateCitizen]

5. You're answering your own questions if the rule of law means anything

Remember -- the opposite of the rule of law is the rule of force. And it's not something you can just pick and choose whenever you want -- EVERY action you take has consequences in this regard, influencing how YOU will be treated down the line.

A number of DUers seemed deeply bothered by the fact that the prisoners at Gitmo had not been convicted in a court of law, so it is illegal and immoral for us to hold them. Indeed, it is a "human rights violation," according to some.

It's not just a human rights violation to some. It's a human rights violation according to the Geneva Conventions. The prisoners are either a) classified as prisoners-of-war, in which case they are repatriated to their country of origin at the cessation of hostilities or, b) they are given fair trial for crimes committed against the country that is holding them.

Of course, a third option would be to have them tried in an international court -- but since we have refused to sign on to the ICC as a violation of our "sovereignty", it doesn't seem as if we can go that route.

So my question is, how are we supposed to convict these people? And if we cannot prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact terrorists or high-ranking Taliban officials, should they be let go?

Yes. Do you honestly expect the blatant ignorance of the rule of law to HELP us in finding and prosecuting terrorists? How will this help enlist other countries in this effort? Will we do so by looking the other way while THEY ignore the rule of law in dealing with their own issues? Do you honestly think that this use of the rule of force will help to diminish the ideology that feeds terrorism, or help to increase it?

Better yet, how much do you think it will help encourage OTHER nations to deal with OUR POW's in accordance with the Geneva Conventions? I'm not saying that they will every time, but in blatantly ignoring these internationally-accepted rules of conduct during wartime, we are opening OUR soldiers up to mistreatment down the line. Is THAT something that you want to help come to fruition?

I say that it would be nearly impossible to convict many, if not most of them, but that we should nevertheless continue to hold them. As I said yesterday, "How are we supposed to prove in an open trial that the prisoner really was captured in Afghanistan and that he was firing at US troops? The only witnesses are the prisoner and his captors. If he was captured on the battlefield, chances are that there aren't a lot of objective witnesses around."

So you're basically saying that you want to save America by destroying everything that America is SUPPOSED to stand for? My God, man! This is the kind of Orwellian doublespeak that is expected from the neocons in the * administration, because we KNOW that they are a bunch of Straussians at heart with nothing but contempt for any kind of democratic process. But it saddens me most to hear this kind of thinking from so many others whom you would expect to EMBRACE and DEFEND democratic processes. If we are truly willing to cast aside our most hallowed institutions and ideals at the first sign of trouble, then we are clearly destined for the great trash-heap of other empires throughout history. It is at trying times such as these that adherence to our institutions and ideals is MOST necessary, rather than giving into fear and casting them aside in hopes of an illusion of safety and security!

[Mandate My Ass]

7. Excellent rebuttal, IC

Human rights and the rule of law are (or should be) inviolable. If by some misguided notion we think we can suspend human rights for national security reasons, it is not only immoral and unethical, but it will backfire. This is something I found out recently that demonstrates how ignoring the rule of law is counterproductive to rounding up true terrorists.

Statement: Attorney General Ashcroft credits the PATRIOT Act with producing a “seamless anti-terror team with international law enforcement and intelligence agencies.”

Reality: The international community has vigorously condemned – and refused to cooperate with – core U.S. counterterrorism strategies of relying on extra-legal systems of indefinite detention. For example, about 680 detainees are now housed at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – including nationals from 40 or more countries, speaking 17 different languages. (Four are children, the youngest aged 13.) The British government has advanced “strong reservations about the military commission” planned for some of the detainees, and some 200 Members of Parliament signed a petition calling for repatriation of the British detainees for trial in the United Kingdom. Spain announced that it would provide no assistance to any case to be tried in a military commission. And in response to reports that the U.S. intended to provide special treatment for U.K. and Australian defendants brought before military commissions, an Egyptian commentator noted that exempting British and Australian suspects from the death penalty invites accusations of “selective justice,” and “risk(s) further condemnation on an already sensitive issue.”

[IrateCitizen]

19. And your post gives an excellent example of this principle in action!

Why on earth would other nations help us -- even our supposed "allies" -- when we run around like we rule the earth? Such are the tactics of bullies, and most thinking people don't like bullies too much.

I'm reminded of an interview that Bill Moyers did with biologist and environmentalist David Suzuki (author and producer of "The Sacred Balance"), in which Suzuki talked of a speech he gave in the US right after 9/11/01 (Suzuki is Canadian).

He said that he was asked how he felt about 9/11. He said that in the period up to 9/11, you had the US running around backing out of EVERY international treaty. We wouldn't join Kyoto. We said we were scrapping the ABM treaty. We wouldn't sign onto the ICC. We wouldn't sign onto the land mine treaty. We wouldn't sign a chemical and biological weapons treaty. Then, all of a sudden, 9/11 happens and George Bush says, "You're either with us or you're against us." What about all of those other things in which George Bush and the US Government were completely unwilling to work with the rest of the world? In an instance like that, it's pretty difficult to work with someone who has no interest in reciprocating AT ALL.

[MrPrax]

8. 'Enemy Combatants'?

This post makes no sense and seems to be driven entirely by...
"Yesterday during a thread about Cuba, the subject of Guantanamo Bay was brought up by a few people eager to draw similarities between our treatment of Muslim prisoners and Castro's crimes against the Cuban people."
The thought that Cuba and America could be possibly compared...

Well there are other rebuttles to your points in this thread--
Something about international law and treaties signed--but International Law is only as good as those that sign it.

It is like any contract--if we follow it works, if we don't then it's not a contract.

At least in the case of Cuba--they did have trials, Castro hasn't advocated state assassination, Cuba doesn't send foreign nationals to countries that engage in torture, hasn't carpetbombed anyone, hasn't suggested that thousands of civillians are 'visited' by the crimes of their leaders, etc etc

Sorry but your crypto-fascist ultra-patriotism makes no sense and it blinds you from seeing anything else other than an unfailing belief in the 'wisdom' and righteousness of your Leader--like Castro demands

[DealsGapRider]

9. Please

"they did have trials, Castro hasn't advocated state assassination"

Please. Trials in Cuba are a joke. It is a totalitarian state, for Christ's sake. The verdicts are not determined by guilt or innocence. As for assassination, when Castro came to power he lined political opponents up against the wall and had them shot without trial. Last I checked they weren't doing that in this country.

"Cuba doesn't send foreign nationals to countries that engage in torture"

No, Castro sends Cubans to do the torturing themselves.

That statement shows how truly blind you are to the monstrousness of the Castro regime. Take a moment to educate yourself on the torture of American POWs by Cuban intelligence officers in Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

http://64.21.33.164/CNews/y99/nov99/08e5.htm

[Brian Sweat]

11. Do you have any evidence that "trials in Cuba are a joke"

or that "Castro sends Cubans to do the torturing themselves?"

I am not pro Castro, by any stretch of the imagination, but I need more than just the party line to convince me of these things.

[DealsGapRider]

13. Well...

Cuban show trials have been the subject of international derision for decades. There's plenty on this subject by Amnesty Inernational, etc.

As for the torture of US service members, you have the testimony of a number of decorated American POWs from the Vietnam war before the House International Relations Committee who have sworn under oath that they were tortured repeatedly by Cuban intelligence officers. I think we both know that irrefutable evidence supporting such activities is going to be hard to come by because totalitarian governments don't exactly keep records about the agents they've sent to commit torture abroad and the Vietnamese aren't likely to cooperate with any investigation.

[Yupster]

10. I'm no international warfare lawyer, but

I think the key is that they were armed irregulars caught in a war zone out of uniform -- basically guerrilla fighters. I don't know how they have to be treated under international law, but throughout history, they've been put against a wall and shot.

I know most about the Civl War, and I read a diary from a Georgia family during Sherman's march to the sea. The man of the family was home on leave from Virginia recovering from an illness when he was out squirrel hunting. He was scooped up by Sherman's men and hanged as an armed irregular caught out of uniform. The family went to the officer and said they didn't know there were Yankees within 50 miles of them, and the man was just out hunting, but there was no trial, and the policy was armed irregulars out of uniform were hanged.

That's just an analogy from the past. Don't know the legalisms of the situation or if they still hold today, or even if they held then.

[DealsGapRider]

12. I'm frankly having a hard time believing that the majority opinion...

...seems to be that we should let the Guantanamo prisoners go if they can't be proven guilty in an American-style court of law. And my guess is that if you polled the 10 Democratic candidates, the only one who MIGHT embrace this position is Dennis Kucinich. I damn sure don't want our party to run on the "Free the Guantanamo Prisoners!" issue. The electorate would surmise that the candidate wasn't serious about terrorism and they'd be right.

Look, I don't care if you swallow the Bush-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft rhetoric about how they hate us because we're free and so on. But this IS a war -- one that al Qaeda explicitly declared against us -- and these prisoners are, in fact, soldiers in that war. During war soldiers are not given trials. And they are not released until the war is over.

I get the real sense that a lot of you would be all too happy to release people who we know are members of al Qaeda simply because it isn't 100% demonstrable in a court of law. That is fucking ridiculous. These people are trying to kill us in huge numbers and you seem more concerned about legal procedure than you do about the fundamental security of our nation. This is the kind of bullshit that makes people think Democrats are weak on national security!! If we released those terrorists and they go and slaughter Americans, what are you going to tell their families? Well, sorry about your loss, but we had to look out for these peoples' rights don't you see. Good grief.

[IrateCitizen]

14. The majority opinion here is that we abide by international law!

No matter how you paint it, DealsGapRider, that is the simple truth. Of course, you can continue to take the low road and try and portray your detractors as something they're not -- may I suggest throwing the term "commie" around a bit, that usually works. :eyes:

During war soldiers are not given trials. And they are not released until the war is over.

That's right. And they are also treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions protocols for prisoners-of-war -- MANY of which have been violated through their internment at Guantanamo Bay.

The term "enemy combatant" is a mirage. It is simply thrown out as an empty term to make people like you believe that the prisoners are being treated in accordance with some sort of internationally-accepted standards. It is a term that DOES NOT EXIST in the Geneva Conventions.

Like I said before, it is in times of crisis in which our committment to the ideals of our nation, and the binding agreements we have made with the international community are most tested. It is at times like these that it is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE that we remain true to these ideals. Because if we do not, then they are worthless slogans. We might as well take a match to the Constitution, because it has ceased to have any true meaning outside of being an old scrap of parchment.

I'm certain that you'll be supporting random violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments, as well -- because we are AT WAR, after all. :eyes:

When you're ready to respond to any of the points repeatedly made throughout this post, rather than just rant at how crazy all of us are, let me know. Until then, you can grab your torch and pitchfork and join the rest of the crazed mob....

[DealsGapRider]

17. Protecting our security is more important than observing....

...every single letter and line of the book of international law.

Sometimes you have to choose between what the law says and what's right. They are not always the same. Look, deny it all you want and call me a storm trooper, but the course of action you're advocating would result in hundreds of seasoned terrorists being set loose. It's that simple. Funny, most people disagree over the methods of waging the war on terrorism and catching al Qaeda. Not many people actually advocate the release of the terrorists we've already caught. Truly breathtaking. Perhaps we should compensate them for the pain and suffering we've caused them so they can finance their next attack.

"And they are also treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions protocols for prisoners-of-war -- MANY of which have been violated through their internment at Guantanamo Bay." Such as? My impression is that these people are being treated very humanely. Indeed, their access to health care is vastly better than it was in the mountains of Afghanistan, and my guess is that the food is, too. What specific problems with their treatment do you have, other than the fact that they are being incarcerated?

"I'm certain that you'll be supporting random violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments, as well -- because we are AT WAR, after all." I just got through saying that I don't support holding American citizens without trial, as the Bush administration has done. But we're talking about foreign nationals who were captured in Afghanistan. You can't talk about violations of constitutional rights when the people you're discussing don't enjoy constitutional protections.

I have asked this repeatedly, but no one has answered so I'll ask it again: How are we supposed to PROVE in an open trial that the prisoner really was captured in Afghanistan and that he was firing at US troops? The only witnesses are the prisoner and his captors. If he was captured on the battlefield, chances are that there aren't a lot of objective witnesses around.

There were literally thousands upon thousands of prisoners taken in Afghanistan. Yet only a few hundred have ended up in Gitmo. Don't you think that says something about the certainty that the US has that these men are indeed members of al Qaeda?

[IrateCitizen]

21. You believe they're "seasoned terrorists" for what reason???

Look, deny it all you want and call me a storm trooper, but the course of action you're advocating would result in hundreds of seasoned terrorists being set loose.

I'm not going to call you a storm trooper. I'd just say that you're another example of a person whose fear has won out over clear rationality -- not a stretch by any means, in this day and age.

Now, how DO you know that these people are "highly seasoned terrorists"? Is it simply because they are several hundred people out of several thousand captured in Afghanistan? Is it because the US government says they are? Do these "seasoned terrorists" include the several children, one as young as 13, that are currently being held in Gitmo?

Not many people actually advocate the release of the terrorists we've already caught. Truly breathtaking. Perhaps we should compensate them for the pain and suffering we've caused them so they can finance their next attack.

I know you can't make a paragraph without trying to smear someone who disagrees with you, but this last sentence is utterly ridiculous. And I ask you once again, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TERRORISTS? Has the US Government been forthright in providing ANY kind of proof? No. They are deemed terrorists simply because Donald Rumsfeld SAYS they are -- much the same as the thousands of Muslim men rounded up and locked up and held without trial, charge or contact are terrorists just because John Ashcroft says they are. Sorry, but I don't exactly trust people in powerful places unless they can prove to ME that they are working in my interest and the greater interest of the nation as a whole.

But we're talking about foreign nationals who were captured in Afghanistan. You can't talk about violations of constitutional rights when the people you're discussing don't enjoy constitutional protections.

I'm not talking about Constitutional protections. I'm talking about clear guidelines agreed upon under the Geneva Conventions.

I have asked this repeatedly, but no one has answered so I'll ask it again: How are we supposed to PROVE in an open trial that the prisoner really was captured in Afghanistan and that he was firing at US troops? The only witnesses are the prisoner and his captors. If he was captured on the battlefield, chances are that there aren't a lot of objective witnesses around.

I thought we were talking about terrorists, not people who fired at us during wartime. Last time I checked, that was the definition of a member of an opposing force, and therefore entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions guidelines for dealing with prisoners-of-war.

There were literally thousands upon thousands of prisoners taken in Afghanistan. Yet only a few hundred have ended up in Gitmo. Don't you think that says something about the certainty that the US has that these men are indeed members of al Qaeda?

Certainty through what? Heresay? Because their Aunt Glenda heard it from a lady who heard it from her postman who heard it from some guy that it was true? If they are certain that these people are terrorists, then they should have EVIDENCE that they are. And EVIDENCE, after all, is what any civilized criminal justice system is based on. If they have enough evidence to KNOW that they are terrorists, they should have enough evidence to convict them in some kind of COURT OF LAW.

I am becoming perpetually amazed by your inability to realize the basic hypocrisy in your stance. I don't know if you're scared of the bogeyman coming to get you or what, but your stance defies all logic or reason, and seems to be firmly rooted in emotion alone. It has nothing to do with choosing "between what the law says and what's right." What is right is to follow accepted standards to STRENGTHEN the rule of law, not become so blind in our panic that we destroy it.

[IrateCitizen]

15. A KICK for DealsGapRider to respond to points in this thread...

without rant, smear and innuendo against his detractors.

Well?

<crickets>

[oldcoot]

24. The majority of Americans can be wrong

During World War II, the majority of white Americans had no problem with the internment of Japanese and Japanese Americans for national security reasons. After all, the United States had been attacked and many considered national security more important than civil liberties. Many historians and other Americans now consider the treatment of the internees a shameful period in American history. In the future, many Americans may view our behavior since 9/11 the same way.

We tend to forget that terrorism is not a new development in the United States. American courts have even successfully convicted terrorists in the past (remember McVeigh?) and I see no reason why the same courts could not try Middle Eastern terrorists. However, we must be careful in defining terrorism. As Irate Citizen as pointed out, firing on an invading army is not an act of terrorism.

You should remember where we are getting all of our information about the prisoners. The Bush administration insists that these individuals are al Qaeda. This administration does not have a good track record for honesty. Remember this the same administration that changes its story about the reasons we invaded Iraq on almost a weekly basis. Why would anyone with an I.Q. over 10 believe Bush?

If one really believes that the best way to deal with terrorism is to abandon the rule of law, one should still question the actions of this administration. If Bush was sincerely interested in finding Osama bin Laden, surely he would have the bin Laden family detained and questioned after September 11th. After all, they probably know more about bin Laden than the inmates at Guantanamo.


It is unfortunate that so many Americans have bought into the conservative lie that we must choose between our values (which include a sense of fair play) and security. I frankly would rather see us spend our resources on internal improvements such as better airport security and training (including martial arts training) for flight attendants than the perment incarceration of people who might be terrorists.

[Forkboy]

16. You're right

we can't take any chances...let's just kill them now to be safe.

[CentristDemocrat]

18. repetitive much?

[Forkboy]

20. Geez...I dont know

have I said this before? Can you give me links to where I have?

Repetitive means actually saying something over and over,like you saying "Green,Dean or Kucinich" all day yesterday :eyes:

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?

[thebigidea]

22. a pre-emptive post

before uh, cough - someone else gets to it, I figure I should get this role in the thread out of the way:

"I'm shocked, outraged! SHOCKED! VERY much angry, yes! Indeed, I am shocked that you would show more concern for terrorists than their victims... even if they have nothing to do with terrorism, just expressing slight skepticism in Mr. Ashcroft's policies will hurt us with the swing voters, uh, the secure soccer moms, uh... wait, let me cut and paste a few pages about Joe Lieberman's consistently inapplicable-to-the-current-debate ratings from The Association for Advanced Confusion... oh, I'm shocked too. REAL shocked. Not so much by those pictures of people on their knees, doubled over in pain. Shocked at your shock - so stop being shocked!"

love and kisses,
Shocked McOutraged

[Forkboy]

23. Shock McOutraged!!!!!

LMFAO

Thats a keeper :)