Camp X-Ray - The Final Solution?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: POWs would have rights under the Geneva and other conventions. Even non-citizens would have rights under the US Constitution. There is a large body of law about what rights they have and which ones they don't. It is clear that habeas corpus and a right to know the charges against them and recieve a fair trial are the bare-bones minimum, and even non-citizens would and SHOULD have these rights. The argument is that they are not POWs but are "illegal combatants" (which is bovine scattology), and that they cannot use constitutional rights as they are not within the US borders (more bovine scattology). It is an abuse of military and political power. Keeping them for a reasonable period to extract info was understandable in the interests of national security (the "trump card" when it comes to ignoring rights). That excuse is old, moldy, and stinky now.

What legal rights do illegal combatants have...I think these are defined by not wearing uniforms, dressing as civilians and other such aspects of non-compliance with the Geneva Convention....Under which COnstitutional ammendment do illegal combatants receive rights in a US court of law...especially when many of them have never set foot in the US? (Unless you count Gitmo as the US due to it being a US held piece of land)

What laws are being broken in specific TImber? What does international law say about illegal combatants...I think soldiers dressed in civilian clothes or in the opposite sides uniforms may be shot on sight in accordance with the rules.....So...what is being done differently here from what was done with similar offenders in the previous wars and conflicts that we have been in?

Basicly I feel that these bozo's deserve what they have received. I do not see this as some kind of sinister move by the government to trounce on our civil rights....I don't see US citizens being rounded up and executed on the street corners...Surprisingly I feel pretty ok with the way things are right now.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, you've assumed that they ARE "illegal combatants" which is an impermissible assumption without a TRIAL establishing FACTS. That's the whole point, you see. It's the denial of PROCESS. Even if they were innocent, they have no chance to prove it.

BTW, international law doesn't address "illegal combatants" AFAIK -- it's a word Bush&Co. made up so they could say they aren't POW's.

Speaking of dressing in civilian clothes, you just barred every person anywhere in the world from having a revolution to fix their government. Only those in power have uniforms, you see. Telling people that those not in uniform can't fight is silly.

Look, I feel sure we could convict these guys for something. But, secrecy and denial of process are the first steps toward tyranny, fascism, totalitarianism or any other form of government where fairness is tossed out the window. If we are going to do the right thing, we should do it. Shrouding it, denying fair process, secreting people away for a year at a time makes the whole affair illegitimate.

When Juan Peron did this same thing in Argentina it was called "disappearing" and was certainly condemned by our government.

If they fall on the battlefield, that's one thing. But, we can't take POWs and ignore them as POWs. Evidence tells us Saddam treated POWs better than we are treating those in Guantanamo. You may not find that embarrassing, but I'd like to hold my gummint to a higher standard. We can't tout justice and then spit in its face.

[skywalker]

Are CIA agents in the field who are undercover and dressed like locals considered illegal combatants if they are caught?

Mark

[EDIT] To fix typos and fix mistakes.

[ 06-12-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Attalus]

No, they are considered spies and shot, sometimes.

[Leonis]

They are being held in legal limbo status so that they can be subject to the physical and mental tortures developed, perfected and disseminated by various US law enforcement and national security agencies - the status being a way of legal denial of responsibility if and when the details of the extreme inhumanity they are served gets out.

If the admin says they are not citizens, refugees, pows, or even on US land etc... then they can deny human rights abuses. Question is, since when did a lack of a definition of legal status take away one's status as a human??

Doesn't International law address human rights? Last time I checked, this was meant to include everybody...

[ 06-12-2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, you've assumed that they ARE "illegal combatants" which is an impermissible assumption without a TRIAL establishing FACTS. That's the whole point, you see. It's the denial of PROCESS. Even if they were innocent, they have no chance to prove it. Not true, commanders in the field who catch people are permitted and do label people captured Illegal combatants...many were lined up and shot ont he spot after the Battle of the Bulge. BTW, international law doesn't address "illegal combatants" AFAIK -- it's a word Bush&Co. made up so they could say they aren't POW's. Speaking of dressing in civilian clothes, you just barred every person anywhere in the world from having a revolution to fix their government. Only those in power have uniforms, you see. Telling people that those not in uniform can't fight is silly. Did not neyaaa [img]smile.gif[/img] you are being deceptive and mixing your circumstances sir. A revolution by definition is not an international affair..it is strictly internal. When you come to the concept of international conflict (one country vs another) you are on a whole different stage...come on TL you can do better than that. Look, I feel sure we could convict these guys for something. But, secrecy and denial of process are the first steps toward tyranny, fascism, totalitarianism or any other form of government where fairness is tossed out the window. If we are going to do the right thing, we should do it. Shrouding it, denying fair process, secreting people away for a year at a time makes the whole affair illegitimate. I think the thing that has some people panties bunched is that they are being told to kiss off when they want to be involved, they got no way to force the issue so they wander around yelling "illegal" "unconstitutional" "the entire government and administration is in on it and corrupt" solely because they don't like something and have no legal recourse to do anything else. When Juan Peron did this same thing in Argentina it was called "disappearing" and was certainly condemned by our government. If they fall on the battlefield, that's one thing. But, we can't take POWs and ignore them as POWs. Evidence tells us Saddam treated POWs better than we are treating those in Guantanamo. You may not find that embarrassing, but I'd like to hold my gummint to a higher standard. We can't tout justice and then spit in its face. I think you are just trying to stir the pot [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by skywalker: Are CIA agents in the field who are undercover and dressed like locals considered illegal combatants if they are caught? Mark [EDIT] To fix typos and fix mistakes.

Actually yes they are Mark, and quite a few of them lost their lives to the Soviets before the CIA and KGB came to a sort of informal understanding that instead of just executing them they would be traded for their counter parts that got caught. If one is captured by someone like Saddam Hussein he is definately going to be either executed as a spy (aka illegal combatant) or he is going to be held for some kind of ransome. Any one who serves in the intelligence business knows this, are trained to try and avoid capture...heck even I had to go through special (rather nasty) evasion and capture training because I spent time on board P3 Aircraft.....hope that answered your question.

Originally posted by Leonis: They are being held in legal limbo status so that they can be subject to the physical and mental tortures developed, perfected and disseminated by various US law enforcement and national security agencies - the status being a way of legal denial of responsibility if and when the details of the extreme inhumanity they are served gets out. Leonis we don't bother with that...if we want wet work done we give them to the Israeli's they are way better at it than we ever could be. If the admin says they are not citizens, refugees, pows, or even on US land etc... then they can deny human rights abuses. Question is, since when did a lack of a definition of legal status take away one's status as a human?? Doesn't International law address human rights? Last time I checked, this was meant to include everybody... yeah amazingly enough none of those international bodys is doing much about them are they? as I said before..far as I have heard not one single rescue attempt has been made.

[Chewbacca]

*sarcasm* Sweet! If we start killing them, we'll stop getting all the bad press about them killing themselves. *sarcasm*

How many detainee "suicides" have there been at x-ray? I think at least five, but maybe more.

The whole "illegal combatants" thing stinks of crap and has since the beginning.

[Timber Loftis]

Just because people were shot after the Battle of the Bulge doesn't make it right. You've seen the scene from Band of Brothers just as well as I (Garnier going nuts). It's horrible and atrocious. It's why the UN was created.

The US signed but refused to ratify that Human Rights treaty, btw, so that won't apply.

I am not just stirring the pot, MagiK. Watch the rise of Hitler. Very subtle takeover of the government by an ideaology. Hell, he pulled that country kicking and screaming out of the depression. Then, once he had a super-majority he did away with rights and gave himself sole power. The steps to tyranny and downfall of a civilization come in small increments, or they wouldn't happen so often. We simply cannot let this be. It's like Europe circa. 1600. You simply cannot jail people without a trial. It is as unfair as unfair can be.

Not to mention that they really are being psychologically and physically tortured. Starvation, sleep deprivation, and forced fatigue and despair may not be exactly the same as tying someone to a bed fram and running electricity through it, but that doesn't mean it isn't torture. I agree we had national security concerns. those are over now -- at least as far as Afghan detainees are concerned.